The late medieval period of the Catholic Church can be best described with two words: severely fraudulent. Writers during this unfortunate period in Christian history were seeking a drastic and absolutely necessary reformation from the top down. In other words, they desired an ethical change in ecclesiastical leadership which would benefit the masses by making authentic Christianity available to them once again. These writers were not afraid to speak out against ecclesiastic indulgence, injustice, corruption, and folly. Much can be learned about late medieval Christianity through a perusing of the works of its staunchest critics.
The prince of Humanism, as he is sometimes called, and Christian, Desiderius Erasmus launched a 1509 satirical masterpiece titled “The Praise of Folly” against those whom he believed stood between the masses and authentic Christianity. Erasmus, in his “Praise of Folly” unleashes his biting social commentary and rebellious wit against the contemporary Catholic Church’s piety, superstition, theology, priesthood, and hierarchical leadership. Erasmus’ writing regarding the theologians of his day is particularly poignant, if not entertaining. He begins with a disclaimer of sorts: “As for the theologians, perhaps it would be better to pass them over in silence, not stirring up a hornets’ nest and not laying a finger on the stinkweed, since this race of men is incredible arrogant and touchy. For they might rise up en masse and march in ranks against me with six hundred conclusions and force me to recant. And if I should refuse, they would immediately shout ‘heretic.’ For this is the thunderbolt they always keep ready at a moments notice to terrify anyone to whom they are not very favorably inclined” (Erasmus 57). This almost humorous disclaimer serves as an introduction to very witty commentary regarding the theologians’ ridiculous penchant for “endless and magisterial definitions, conclusions,” and “corollaries” (Erasmus 58). Specific examples of this penchant are most obviously discernable in the theological questions of the day, i.e., “Whether God could have taken on the nature of a woman, of the devil, of an ass, of a cucumber, of a piece of flint? And then how would the cucumber would have preached, performed miracles, and been nailed to the cross?” (Erasmus 58). Erasmus does not spare the “religious” or the “monks” his berating wit either. Erasmus branded those who considered themselves “religious” or “monk” to be anything but that which such monikers signify. He, in fact, couldn’t imagine “how anything could be more wretched than these men,” who were in reality “far removed from religion” and “encountered more frequently everywhere you go” (Erasmus 61). Popes and priests are offered the same treatment. Popes are painted as the antithesis of the Christ example of poverty, labor, teaching, and sacrifice. It is the popes who have an abundance of luxuries, honor, and pomp. Popes have all of the advantages this life can afford. “How many advantages would these men be deprived of if they were ever assailed by wisdom” (Erasmus 66)? The priests, on the other hand, and when not fighting “for their right to tithes, with sword, spears, and stone, with every imaginable sort of armed force,” are busy keeping a “sharp lookout to harvest their profits” (Erasmus 67-68). Clearly, the Church is faulted from the top down in the mind of Erasmus. Yet, he continues on in his Catholic tradition and remains a devotee of the religion for the remainder of his life. His life ends while he is a humanist, a dedicated Christian, and a religious reformer.
(Erasmus, Desiderius. In Praise of Folly. A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts with Introductions. Ed. Denis Janz. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999.)
Related posts:
