Having the disguise of Folly, Erasmus critiqued the developing middle-class financial values, policies of hierarchy, and even Catholicism itself, and in the course he safeguarded the traditional Christian ethic, which appears as Folly to the world. Obviously, the affection of Christ was distant from the princes of Christendom, ...
Among the untrained people, Erasmus saw "varieties of silliness" in the "ordinary life of Christians everywhere" (66). Fallacy and empty rites made up most of the varieties of silliness. Erasmus spoke out contrary to the sect of saints, whose supporters had disremembered the vital opinion that "the saint will protect you if you'll try ...
The sleaze of the clergy was similar to that of the princes, and like the princes their existences made ridicule of the " linen vestment, snow -white in colour to indicate a pure and spotless life" (107) and other symbols of the ideal Erasmus envisioned for the cardinals, bishops, and popes.
Erasmus criticized the theologians, in particular the scholastics, for the exclusiveness that triggered them to "write for a learned minority" (81) and divide theological aspects that only added to division. Among the untrained people, Erasmus saw "varieties of silliness" in the "ordinary life of Christians everywhere" (66).
It may seem odd or different to admire and acclaim Folly, but there is a definite benefit to foolishness: the freedom to tell only factual information. In Praise of Folly, Erasmus put this independence to good use in repeating to the readers, a civilization significantly besmirched by mature worries, that a person is unable to serve both God ...
While Erasmus remained faithful to the Catholic Church, Erasmus observed many exploitations among her ministry, theologians, and untrained persons, and he dedicated a huge apportion of the Praise of Folly to disapproval of the sleaze in the Church. Haven’t found the relevant content?