What can we learn from reflecting on Erasmus’ work, On Praise of Folly?
How did On Praise of Folly influence the upcoming Protestant Reformation?
Were Erasmus and Martin Luther allies or enemies in the Reformation?
When can satire such as this work by Erasmus be considered slanderous?
Script for this video, with more Amazon book links: https://www.slideshare.net/BruceStrom1/how-did-erasmus-on-praise-of-folly-influence-the-protestant-reformation
YouTube video: https://youtu.be/FYuIbYlIx5U
Link to purchase On Christian Morality by St Nicodemus:
https://ibmgs.org/patristic.html
For more interesting videos, please click to subscribe to our YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@ReflectionsMPH/?sub_confirmation=1
LIFE OF ERASMUS
Erasmus was born about fifteen years before Martin Luther in Rotterdam in the Netherlands; he was an illegitimate son of a priest. His parents died from the plague when he was a teenager. However, he had many good patrons, and he had the good fortune of attending one the best Latin schools in the Netherlands where he also studied Greek and theology. He was ordained as an Augustinian monk but was able to leave the monastery to serve as the secretary of his patron, Bishop Henry of Bergen, due to his reputation as a Latin scholar and his humanistic studies.
Although he was later offered a position as a professor, he preferred to be an independent scholar supported by patrons and the publication of his widely read works, as he was one of the most popular published authors of Europe. He had published several works before In Praise of Folly, which he published in 1514.
Just a few years later, in 1516, Erasmus published the newly compiled Greek New Testament, a year before Luther unwittingly started the Protestant Reformation when he posted his Ninety-Five Theses on the door of the Wittenberg cathedral. Luther translated a vernacular German New Testament using Erasmus’ Greek text as a source.
Although the Protestant Reformation adopted many of the criticisms Erasmus leveled at the church, Erasmus never left the Catholic Church. Luther bitterly broke with Erasmus over the issue of free will, Luther denying the role of free will. But Erasmus was uncomfortable with the extreme polemics of his day on both sides, drawing the condemnation of both Protestants and Catholics.[1]
IN PRAISE OF FOLLY, DEDICATION TO THOMAS MORE
Erasmus begins On Praise of Folly by dedicating it to his friend Thomas More, and indeed he writes this work when he is on an extended visit with More and is waiting for his library to be delivered.
Sir Thomas More is known both for his literary works and his prominent role in English politics. His most famous literary work was Utopia, originally published in Latin in 1516. He contrasts the contentious social life of European states with the orderly life of his mythical Utopia, which was partially influenced by the ideals of monasticism. Initially he was critical of Luther and the Protestant Reformation.
During the reign of Henry VIII, Sir Thomas More served first as the Speaker of the House of Commons, and later served as Lord Chancellor for the king. He refused to sign the letter to the pope requesting permission to divorce Catherine of Aragon when she was unable to give birth to an heir to the throne. More also refused to take the required oath acknowledging King Henry VIII as the Supreme Head of the Church of England rather than the pope. After he refused to attend the coronation of Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII’s second wife, the king ordered his execution.[2]
In Greek the word for folly sounds like “More,” so a secondary meaning of the title could be, In Praise of Thomas More, and he compares his work to the classical works by Lucian; Seneca’s satirical work on the deification of the hapless Emperor Claudius; Plutarch’s humorous dialogue between Gryllus and Achilles, or Odysseus, where Gryllus was one of his men who was turned into a pig by the witch Circe and who explains why he prefers to remain a pig; and the Golden Ass by Apuleius, which we will review in early 2023.
In his dedication, Erasmus announces, “Let others judge me as they will; yet unless self-love completely deceives me, I have praised folly and not altogether foolishly.”
And Erasmus recognizes the spiritual danger of satire. “In response to the charge of sarcasm, I reply that this freedom has always been permitted to men of wit, that in their satire they make fun of the common behavior of men with impunity,” as long as they do not go too far. Erasmus also posits that “he who censures the lives of men without mentioning any names, I wonder if he does not teach and warn rather than bite,” and this is good advice, that you should avoid criticizing men in print, even sometimes when they are public figures, to avoid damaging their reputations. And I say sometimes, because sometimes we can directly criticize the policies and stances of public figures, if it serves the public good.[3]
IN PRAISE OF FOLLY, FOLLY SPEAKS
Erasmus’ “Folly speaks: No matter what people commonly say about me,” my “influence makes both gods and men glad.”
But then Erasmus has Folly make statements that appear on their face to be completely contrary to the teachings of the monastic Church Fathers and stoics: “I have no use for those so-called wise persons who say that it is absolutely stupid and insolent for a person to praise himself. Let them say it is foolish if they wish, but let them admit that it is proper; for what is more suitable that that Folly trumpet her own praises?”
To understand the historical context, we need to understand how deeply influential monasteries and the Catholic Church were in the Middle Ages, which we discussed in our video on St John of the Cross. Most young men today who are not sure what they want to do with their life, and do not wish to attend college, sign up for military service. Young men in medieval Europe did not have this option, monasteries or the priesthood were the choice for young men who had few options. This was true to a greater extent for young women, they found greater independence and opportunities as nuns than were available to other medieval women. Both in ancient and medieval times, monasteries were often spiritual boot camps.
St John of the Cross, describing medieval monasteries: https://youtu.be/DgL7Y5pIFAU
Erasmus is making the point that often you cannot tell folly from wisdom, that which men take for wisdom is really folly, and that which men take for folly is really wisdom. There is a tradition of holy fools, particularly in the Eastern Church, of holy fools who may, for example, ignore the fasting rules by eating sausage on the steps of the church during Lent, to emphasize that Love for God and neighbor comes from the heart, not from making a show of fasting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foolishness_for_Christ
Erasmus is satirically making the same point as the monastic writers themselves point out constantly, that it is altogether too easy to succumb to pride when your pursuit of asceticism is more for show, to impress your fellow monks, than it is to increase the Love of God and neighbor in your heart. Whether it is wise to make this point using too easily misinterpreted satire is a valid question. Indeed, this is a question we will examine, Is satire spiritually wise?
Erasmus’ Folly explains, “All emotion belongs to Folly,” “emotions rule the fool, while reason directs the wise man. Thus, the Stoics exclude the emotions as if they were diseases from the wise man,” and emotions are “spurs and stimuli in every performance of virtue.”
Folly “hears the philosophers disagreeing. They say that it is misery to live in folly, to err, to be deceived, and to be ignorant. On this contrary, however, this is what it is to be human.”[4]
Erasmus’ Folly continues explaining why her sarcasm is true: “I have no use for cosmetics. I do not belie the interior of my heart by my outward appearance. I am always myself and they who take for themselves the title and bearing of wise men are unable to disguise me even though they walk about like apes in purple robes or asses in lion skins.” Folly then derides those who fancy themselves philosophers, but who are really foolosopohers, “who subtly work into their Latin orations a few Greek phrases as embellishment” though they serve no purpose other than to impress. Such pretensions can fool the ignorant. But we must ask ourselves: Does Folly cross over to slander here?
Erasmus pictures Folly as an antihero of the gods: his Folly states that “his father is neither Chaos, Orcus, Saturn, Jupiter, or any other ancient or moldy gods, but Plutus, god of riches, the father of gods and men despite the opinion of Homer, Hesiod, and Zeus himself.” We will shortly cut a video on Hesiod’s Works and Days, which was influential in ancient Greece, behind Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. At the nod of Plutus, “all things sacred and profane are turned topsy-turvy.” Indeed, even today, with the influence of the Prosperity Gospel, do we not worship the wealthy as more worthy than the needy, do we not seek to see the wealthy rewarded for their so-called Christian stewardship?
Who is Folly’s mother, but “Youth, the most beautiful nymph of all, and the gayest at that.” Folly is born in “islands where there is no labor, or old age, or any sickness.” What has changed? Today we prefer our men to be gaudily wealthy and distinguished, and our women be ravishingly young super-models.
Erasmus’ Folly satirizes her antihero status by praising gods who are the mirror images of the vices that the Church Fathers and Stoics condemn. Whose breasts nurtured the young Folly? The two charming nymphs “Drunkenness, offspring of Bacchus,” god of wine, “and Ignorance, daughter of Pan.”
Which other gods nurture folly?
- “Self-love, with her eyebrows raised so haughtily.
- Flattery, who claps her hands with laughing eyes.
- Forgetfulness, the drowsy one who looks as though she were asleep.
- Laziness, who leans on her elbows with her hands folded.
- Pleasure, who wears the wreath of rose and smells of perfume.
- Madness, who rolls her eyes to and fro,” who is also an attribute of Bacchus, god of wine.
- Also, Sensuality, Intemperance, and Sound Sleep.
Then Erasmus’ Folly mocks stoicism. Folly exclaims, “Would life without pleasure be called life at all? You applaud!” “The Stoics, however, spurn pleasure, or at least they carefully pretend to; they attack it assiduously in public but only so that they may enjoy it the more once.” But “what part of life is not sad, troublesome, graceless, flat, and burdensome unless you have pleasure, the seasoning of Folly, added to it.”
Stoic Philosopher Seneca: https://youtu.be/m4mcP2F9c4w
Stoic Philosopher Epictetus: https://youtu.be/Dhd543kov-E
Stoic Philosopher Marcus Aurelius: https://youtu.be/0qHpReZYhv4
Since entertainment is affordable and available in the modern world, even those who earn little can afford the movies and television and vacations, we really live more of an Epicurean rather than Stoic lifestyle. This is in contrast with the ancient world, when only the wealthy could afford an Epicurean lifestyle.
Epicurus and Epicureans: https://youtu.be/49Qv3Be86Jw
IN PRAISE OF FOLLY, FOLLY REFLECTS ON CHILDREN AND MARRIAGE
After turning on their head the lists of vices of the Stoics and Church Fathers, showing many to actually be virtues, then Folly reflects on how we should treat those who are close to us with love and forbearance, advice that is not counter to Christian teaching.
Folly does ask a good question, lest we take ourselves too seriously, “Who does not know that childhood is by far the happiest period of man’s life and that it is much more pleasant for everyone? For what is there about little children that makes us kiss and hug and fondle them so that even an enemy would help someone of this age? The charm of Folly, of course, that prudent nature bestows on the toddler.” We all know that “as youth matures through experience and education, the sparkle of its beauty begins to fade; its zest diminishes; its charm cools; and its vigor falls off.” “Folly is the only thing that makes fleeting youth linger and staves off ugly old age.”
Indeed, the story of how Jesus blesses the little children, bidding his disciples to let the children come unto him, directly precedes the story of the rich young man, who asks what he needs to do to be perfect, that is, to Love God, and to love your neighbor as yourself. Children are charming in their naivete, we need to recapture this by being purposefully naïve, being as eager to forgive the faults of our neighbor as Christ is eager to forgive us.
Folly tells us, “According to the Stoic definition, wisdom is nothing other than being guided by reason. Folly, on the other hand, is swayed by the whim of passion. But, in order that man’s life should not be completely sad and gloomy, Zeus puts in us five times more passion than reason, placing reason in a narrow corner in our head, leaving the rest of the body to the passions. Zeus also instills two violent tyrants against reason:
- Anger, which occupies the heart, the very font of life in the breast.
- Lust, which rules a wide empire farther down even to the private parts.”
Then Folly says some unflattering things about silly women, before commenting that “the cheeks of women are always smooth, their voices gentle, and their skin soft as if taking part in eternal youth. Besides, what more do they want in life than to please men?”
Most monastic works do not discuss marriage directly, but many of the Old Testament stories draw moral lessons from the marriage and family lives of the patriarchs. There is also a verse in the Old Testament that mandates that when a young Jewish soldier in the army becomes married, that he should not be separated from his newlywed wife for the first years of his marriage.
We also have the verse from St Paul exhorting us that spouses should not deny the other affection, except for a time of prayer by mutual consent.
Just as the folly of pleasure and joy enhances our life with our children, so frivolity also enlivens our friendships, and in particular our marriages. Folly observes: “Indeed, what divorces or worse would come about if married life were not upheld and nourished by flattery, joking, compromise, ignorance, and duplicity, all satellites of mine?” Folly encourages the “wife to please her husband, and the husband to please his wife, so that the marriage will endure.” “No union in life can be happy or lasting without me. A people will not long bear with its prince, nor a master his servant, nor a maid her mistress, nor a teacher his student, nor a friend his friend, nor a wife her husband, nor a landlord his tenant, unless they make mistakes together or individually, flatter each other, wisely overlook things, and soothe themselves with the sweetness of folly.”
Folly asks, “will a person love anyone else if he hates himself? Will he be harmonious with other people when he cannot get along with himself? Will he bring happiness to anyone else when he is sullen and grouchy with himself?”[5]
IN PRAISE OF FOLLY, FOLLY WARNS US OF FALSE RELIGION
Erasmus does not organize his Praise of Folly into logical sections, but in the middle, he does transition from the spiritually dangerous satire of the teachings of the monastic church Fathers and Stoics to critiques and warnings on how easily the religious life can be subverted, warnings against false religion that we should heed. He remarks how many Christians in his day are too quick to believe stories of ghosts and goblins, and how gazing on an icon will prevent them from dying on that saint’s day, and how foolish it is to pray that you will become rich.
One common superstition that both Erasmus and Luther derided was the sale of indulgences, which technically does not forgive sins, but rather reduces the time your soul spends in Purgatory, a theological subtlety that was lost on the many ignorant peasants who purchased these indulgences, as well as the salesman monks who sold them. This was wrapped up in the resented practice of Rome selling bishoprics, which were worth as considerable sum as the bishops could profit from the rents and benefices of the bishopric. They would often finance this purchase with a bank loan, and then sell indulgences to pay off the loan. Both the theology and business ethics of selling forgiveness for tidy sums were questionable and resented by the truly devout. The Council of Trent began the process of reforming many of these corrupt practices.
Council of Trent: https://youtu.be/Thq1blvzWHs
Foreshadowing the issue that will spark Luther’s Reformation, Folly also reflects on the foolishness of “calculating the time to be spent in Purgatory down to the year, month, day and hour,” “relying on magical prayers and charms sold by some charlatan” “for their profit.” Echoing a later observation by Luther, many “businessmen, soldiers, or judges donate a small coin thinking it will pardon all his perjury, lust, drunkenness, fighting, murder, fraud, lying, and treachery. After doing this, he thinks that he can start a new round of sinning with a clean slate.” Indeed, what upset Luther was the abuse of even selling indulgences for future misbehavior.
Folly imagines what would happen if a “troublesome wise man spoke the truth: ‘You will not be freed from your sins unless you add to the payment of money: hatred for evil, tears, vigils, prayers, and fasting; and if you change your whole way of living. A saint will take care of you if you imitate him.’ If a wise man said things of this type, I say, he would take all the happiness out of life and throw the world into a tumult.”
Folly reflects on how we worship the success that wealth brings, and how many acquire wealth: “The most foolish and sordid of all are your merchants.” “Sometimes they lie, they perjure themselves, they steal and cheat, and they impose on the public. Yet they consider themselves important men because they have gold rings on their fingers. Nor do they hesitate to flatter the friars who admire them and call them right Honorable in public, so they will earn a donation from the ill-gotten gains” of this cheating.[6]
IN PRAISE OF FOLLY, FOLLY CRITICIZES CLERGY WHO ARE CORRUPT
We purposefully word this heading, Folly criticizes clergy who are corrupt, because Erasmus clearly is only criticizing the Catholic clergy who are corrupt, he does not argue that the Catholic Church itself is corrupt. Unfortunately, Luther and polemic Protestants goes further, and they shout that the Catholic Church itself is corrupt, and by extension Catholic clergy, which demonstrates the spiritual danger of Erasmus’ satire. We are not condemning Erasmus for Folly’s barbs, for he discusses genuine clerical abuses, and indeed imperfect clergy has and always will be a problem with the church, as seen in the famous icon of the Ladder of Divine Ascent, where the demons pull down clergy climbing up the ladder to salvation.
Folly criticizes both corrupt clergy and those who are deluded by a false application of scholasticism: “These theologians are happy in their self-love, as if they were in a third heaven, looking down on all men as though they were animals that crawled along the ground, coming near to pity them. They are protected by a wall of scholastic definitions, arguments, corollaries, and implicit and explicit propositions.”
Folly lists silly questions that some shallow scholastics ask, such as: “When did divine generation occur? Are there several sonships in Christ?” “Could God the Father have taken upon Himself the likeness of a woman, a devil, an ass, a gourd, or a piece of flint?” Perhaps Folly is a bit harsh, too mocking. There are academics in any age that like to show off their knowledge, but since scholars in all ages ask sincere questions, such satire can cause harm and achieves little good, and can discourage people from studying to improve themselves.
Folly reflects: “Although the apostles teach grace, yet they never determine the difference between a grace freely given and the one that makes one deserving. They urge us to do good works, but they don’t separate work in general, work being done, and work that is already finished. At all times they inculcate charity, but they don’t distinguish infused charity from that which is acquired, or state whether charity is an accident or a substance, created or uncreated.”
This criticism is valid, although interpretation is needed for biblical passages are terse and difficult to understand, so perhaps this criticism is overdrawn.
Folly goes too far when she criticizes monks, Luther would later repeat these criticisms, and Protestants in Germany, England, and in other places would use these criticisms to justify seizing church property to add to the wealth of kings and nobility. How many monks and nuns were turned out into the streets without any regard of how they could make a living? One depressing truth was that the Protestant Reformation could not be reversed as that would mean that kings and nobility might need to return stolen church property.
Folly says that “most people detest monks so much that accidentally meeting one is considered to be bad luck, thought the monks themselves believe they are magnificent creatures.” “When braying out their gospels in church they think they are pleasing God,” when they are merely repeating Psalms rather than praying them from their hearts. Some monks from the mendicant orders, such as the Franciscans, “make a good living from their uncleanliness and beggary by bellowing their petitions for food from door to door.” This disdain of charity discourages generosity, this is unfortunately one aspect of many modern Christians.[7]
IN PRAISE OF FOLLY, FOLLY CRITICIZES THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH
Luther once commented in frustration how the Catholic Church only had one pope to deal with, but that he, Luther, with dozens of Protestant Princes of small German states, he had dozens of popes to battle. Likewise, Folly reflects on how princes were commonly “ignorant of the laws; an enemy of the public; intent on private gain; taken to pleasure; against knowledge, liberty, and truth; never concerned with the safety of the state; and finally measuring everything in terms of his own desire and profit.”
It was common in the Middle Ages for bishops to rule as secular rulers, and Folly likewise complains that “our popes, cardinals, and bishops have” become like princes, “beating these noblemen at their own game,” bishops often delegating the spiritual responsibilities of bishops to their subordinates.
Folly reflects that bishops often “proceed with pomp and with such titles as Beatitude, Reverence, and Holiness.” These bishops all too often find that “to educate the people is irritating; to pray is a waste of time; to interpret Sacred Scripture is a mere formality; to weep is distressing and womanish; to live in poverty is ignominious;” “and to die is unpleasant, to die on the cross, dishonorable.”
Erasmus’ Folly then discusses how damaging some papal interdicts can be to the faith, how popes are often too quick to issue “interdictions, excommunications, anathemas, edicts,” and problematic papal bulls.
Interdictions were papal suspensions of the administrations of sacraments in the realms where the ruler was at odds with the church, which could last for decades, and which mainly served to erode the faith of common Christians. Erasmus also criticizes those popes who take up arms to defend or protect the sovereignty of the Papal States.
What should we expect from our bishops and priests? Folly explains by quoting a verse that was misinterpreted in the Middle Ages and is often misinterpreted today to justify the unholy trinity of God, guns, and football, to justify the arming of Christians against supposed enemies. Folly explains that the Scriptures exhort that “whoever has a bag, let him take it, and whoever does not have a sword, let him sell his coat and buy a sword.” But Folly explains this verse means that Christians should “equip themselves with the sword of the spirit that enters the inmost recesses of the heart and severs from it” everything that conflicts with piety. This interpretation is confirmed by the instruction by Jesus to put away the sword.
This type of interpretation is in line with St Augustine’s teaching in On Christian Doctrine, or On Christian Teaching, that a proper interpretation of Scripture is one that increases in us the two-fold love of God and neighbor.
St Augustine, On Christian Teaching: https://youtu.be/uQCnAJMPoos
Folly asks, “what else does the expression ‘Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees,’ mean other than, ‘Woe to you who are wise?’” “Jesus takes his greatest delight in little children, women, and fishermen,” “preferring to ride upon a humble donkey. The Holy Spirit came down from heaven in the guise of a dove, rather than an eagle or hawk. The Holy Scriptures celebrate deer, fawns, lambs,” and “sheep as those who are destined to immortal life.”[8]
IN PRAISE OF FOLLY, SHE SUMMARIZES HER REFLECTIONS
Folly sums up her view of true Christianity, where true wisdom is often seen as folly. “If you want proof, take a look at children, old women, and fools and see how they, more than others, take great pleasure in religion, they seem to have a natural impulse to stand closer to the altar.” The first disciples, “embracing simplicity, became the most severe enemies of learning. And finally, what fool could be more foolish than the fool consumed by the ardor of religion? They throw away their wealth, they neglect injuries, permit themselves to be deceived, fail to discriminate between friend and foe, shrink from pleasure, and cram themselves with hunger, vigils, tears, and labors. They prefer death to life.”
Folly refers to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, the central story in the Platonic dialogue, the Republic, where the reality that most men accept is nothing more than vague shadows of representations displayed on the walls of the cave. Plato describes how those few who venture to climb out of the cave are dazzled by the sunlight of enlightened reality. St Gregory of Nyssa teaches us that we need to continue this climb fleeing ignorance, climbing the mountain to greater revelation of Christian virtue. CS Lewis’ great book, the Great Divorce, imagines that the residents of Hell can still choose, though nearly all refuse, to board the bus to climb into the bright sun and visit a brighter place, the foothills of the mountains where the faithful climb in their eternal quest for perfection and union with Christ.
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, and St Gregory of Nyssa and CS Lewis on how the Christian should continue the climb out of the cave up to the mountain of salvation: https://youtu.be/wuqwy3GyO_4
Folly reminds us: “What happened in the cave of Plato’s myth, where he who escaped the cave told the others bound within that the outside held realities rather than shadows, is the fate of most men.” Both think the other is mad. “The majority of mankind values most riches, bodily comforts, and finally the soul, which many do not even believe in, as they have not seen it with their eyes. The pious agree in directing their efforts first toward God, the purest of all existence, and in the second place, in what comes closest to Him, namely the soul.”
Folly reminds us of the tension between the vulgar and the devout. “The pious, since they aim primarily at what is almost alien to the crass senses, are numbed and stunned by the sensual. In contrast, the ordinary person gravitates towards them.” Thus, many negligent people value bodily sensations such as “sex, love of food, sleep, anger, pride, and envy. The pious wage a constant war against these urges, whereas the vulgar crowd considers that without them life has no real existence.”[9]
FOLLY’S DILEMA: CAN SATIRE BE SLANDERDOUS?
Before we read this famous work by Erasmus, we reflected on the work, Christian Morality, by St Nicodemus, a renowned Orthodox scholar of the eighteenth century, who originally collated and published a collection of Greek manuscripts by the Eastern Church Fathers, the Philokalia. St Nicodemus reflects the teachings of prior Eastern Church Fathers in his teaching that Christians should not joke or jest, though they can smile and carefully humorous. His teaching does not need to be followed literally, as they reflect both a monastic mindset and a desire to be seen as devout by their morally restrictive Moslem neighbors, but they do provide warnings of the spiritual dangers of jokes, jests, and by extension, satire, such as in Erasmus’ work, In Praise of Folly.
St Nicodemus, Christians Should Not Joke or Laugh: https://youtu.be/WAroedUiytY
St Nicodemus teaches us that our life on earth is serious, it is a time of spiritual warfare, where even the good can be twisted to evil purposes. “The present life is a life of mourning and sorrow; the future life is a life of mirth and joy. The present life is full of afflictions and tears, while the future life is full of gladness and exultation.” Furthermore, our good saint teaches us that the speech of Christians who laugh at ribald jokes “is corrupted, since they fill their speech with obscene, indecent, and shameless words.”
Erasmus begins with satire that is too clever by half, he begins by pretending to praise the virtues of Folly by having her mock the monastic and stoic teachings of virtue, his intention is to demonstrate the false religiosity of insincere monks and scholastics who drive logic to its extremes, but the spiritual danger is many who will cite this work to mock and condemn the teachings of the early Church Fathers and Stoic Philosophers.
The more serious spiritual danger is that biting humor and satire can begin a progression, and the end result of this progression in Erasmus’ day was the Protestant Reformation. St Nicodemus warns us: “Often from an indecent word our mind entertains” indecent thoughts; “from entertainment it gives assent; from assent it succumbs to evil deeds; from evil deeds it develops a proclivity for sin, forming a bad habit; bad habits descend into uncaring impenitence, which leads to despair; and from despair our soul is flung into Hell and perdition.”
The gentle satire of Erasmus all too quickly deteriorated into the brutal, bloody, take-no-prisoners polemics of the Protestant Reformation, breeding a toxic triumphalism that infects most Christian denominations up to the current day.
The Gospels do not record any instance where Jesus or the Apostles engaged in sophisticated satire. St Basil notes in His time on earth, the “Lord experienced those emotions that arise from the flesh, and those that attest to virtue, such as weariness and pity for the afflicted,” but in the “Gospels, at no time did he consent to laugh,” although the Scriptures records that Jesus wept four times.[10]
[1] Erasmus, The Essential Erasmus, John P Dolar, Translator (New York: Meridian, Penguin Group, 1517, 1983), Life of Erasmus, pp. 17-23 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus .
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More
[3] Erasmus, The Essential Erasmus, In Praise of Folly, pp. 99-100.
[4] Erasmus, The Essential Erasmus, In Praise of Folly, pp. 120-122.
[5] Erasmus, The Essential Erasmus, In Praise of Folly, pp. 106-113.
[6] Erasmus, The Essential Erasmus, In Praise of Folly, pp. 129-137.
[7] Erasmus, The Essential Erasmus, In Praise of Folly, pp. 143-149.
[8] Erasmus, The Essential Erasmus, In Praise of Folly, pp. 155-168.
[9] Erasmus, The Essential Erasmus, In Praise of Folly, pp. 169-172.
[10] St Nicodemus the Hagiorite, Christian Morality, translated by Hieromonk Father Patapios, Monk Father Chrysostomos, and Archbishop Chrysostomos (Belmont, Massachusetts, Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1803, 2012), this blog has the page references: https://wp.me/pachSU-Mb
Be the first to comment