. . . Next to [the theologians in happiness] are those who call themselves the religious and monks. [Both are complete misnomers], since a great part of them are farthest from religion, and no [people are seen more often in public.] [They are so] detested that [people] take it for ill luck to meet one of them by chance, yet . . . they flatter themselves . . . they are so illiterate that they can’t so much as read . . . [Most of them capitalize on their dirt and poverty by whining for food from door to door. . .] These pleasant fellows with all this vileness, ignorance, rudeness, and impudence, . . . represent to us . . . the lives of the apostles . . . [The monks of certain orders] are afraid to touch money as poison, and yet neither [restrain from] wine nor dallying with women.”%0D%0A%0D%0AAccording to Erasmus in this passage from The Praise of Folly, which is an accurate analysis of the Catholic clergy?
According to Erasmus, the passage from The Praise of Folly criticizes both theologians in happiness and the religious and monks within the Catholic clergy. Erasmus suggests that many of them are far from being truly religious and are often disliked by the public. He also accuses them of being illiterate and incapable of reading. Additionally, he points out that some monks use their poverty and dirt as a means to beg for food, while indulging in wine and relationships with women. Erasmus portrays them as ignorant, rude, and impudent individuals who do not truly exemplify the lives of the apostles. Therefore, the passage suggests that the Catholic clergy, as depicted by Erasmus, is flawed and falls short of genuine religious devotion.
