![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/07\/KingLearFool.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
From a public thread on my Facebook page<\/a>. Dawn\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I appreciate your theological points very much but refrain from sharing your posts because you use polemic insults such as \u201cblowhard fools.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n That was my strongest language, reserved for a person who richly deserves it (Chris Ferrara). I could give literally scores of examples as to why I think that. He has childishly and unjustly insulted my good friend and your associate, Bob Fastiggi, among countless others. So there is plenty of warrant for use of the term (\u201cfool\u201d being quite biblical) for him. But out of respect for you and your fine work, and taking your point, I\u2019ll remove it from the article.<\/p>\n I also use \u201creactionaries\u201d but I very meticulously define that elsewhere as a category that goes far beyond traditionalism. I use it precisely to differentiate legitimate traditionalists who are tarred in wrongful association with the reactionaries.<\/p>\n Thanks. If we\u2019re talking about what\u2019s biblical, don\u2019t forget Matthew 5:22.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t forget it, Dawn. I\u2019m glad you brought that up, as I have written<\/a> about it: twice<\/a>. The passage has to be interpreted and examined more closely. And when we do that, it turns out that it is not an absolute prohibition: anymore than \u201cturn the other cheek\u201d<\/a> is (St. Paul didn\u2019t do that at his trial).<\/p>\n Both Jesus and Paul use \u201cfool\u201d several times, and Scripture tells us to imitate them. The word for \u201cfool\u201d in Matthew 5:22 is moros<\/em>\u00a0and Jesus used it on two other occasions:<\/p>\n Matthew 23:17, 19<\/strong>\u00a0(RSV) You blind fools! [moros<\/em>] For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? . . . [19] You blind men! [moros<\/em>] For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?<\/p>\n Matthew 25:2-3, 8<\/strong> Five of them were foolish [moros<\/em>], and five were wise. [3] For when the foolish [moros<\/em>] took their lamps, they took no oil with them; . . . [8] And the foolish [moros<\/em>] said to the wise, \u2018Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n St. Paul used another word usually translated as \u201cfool\u201d at least five times. \u201cFools\u201d are also referred to 135 times in the Old Testament.<\/p>\n Because of this, I don\u2019t hold the view that use of the word \u201cfool\u201d is absolutely prohibited, and so I use it, but reserve it (usually) for extreme cases. It\u2019s a very biblical word, and we can use it, when justified, just as David, Solomon, Jesus, and Paul did.<\/p>\n Chris Ferrara, for those unfamiliar with him, has severely trashed Vatican II, the ordinary form Mass, Pope St. John Paul II, and derisively refers to orthodox Catholics as \u201cneo-Catholics\u201d (which term he popularized, after Gerry Matatics coined it). Bashing popes is nothing new with him.<\/p>\n That<\/em> is a biblical \u201cfool\u201d if anyone is.<\/p>\n Jesus and Paul are careful not to use ad hominems<\/em>. They use the words \u201cfool\u201d or \u201cfoolish\u201d to describe types of people (the rich man of the parable who stores up goods is a type, not an actual person) and not to slander individuals. We need to be careful not to cherry-pick verses while ignoring the numerous exhortations to charity and admonitions against misuse of the tongue.<\/span><\/p>\n Besides, love your enemy and all that.<\/span><\/p>\n The Pharisees were quite real, and Jesus used the term of them. In Paul\u2019s five usages, real men were involved (and a whole church, too):<\/p>\n Galatians 3:1, 3<\/strong> O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? . . . [3] Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If the use was absolutely wrong, Jesus couldn\u2019t have done that, nor Paul, and Jesus couldn\u2019t and wouldn\u2019t have used it even in a parable.<\/p>\n Also, given the constant use of \u201cfool\u201d in the wisdom literature, it\u2019s simply impossible to say that we must never use the word. If someone actually is a [biblical] fool, it\u2019s not slander to refer to him as one. It\u2019s the truth. It\u2019s a needed rebuke.<\/p>\n Yeah, I\u2019m all for charity, and I am widely regarded (based on feedback I receive) as a charitable apologist, who refrains from needless personal attacks and insults and simply lays out my case. I\u2019m not perfect, but I can say with assurance that I am not characterized (as a character trait) by being free with slander and insults and \u201cevil speaking.\u201d I\u2019m with you: I condemn that all the time and seek to (imperfectly) model a better way in my demeanor.<\/p>\n Once all the biblical data is taken into consideration, it seems very clear to me that there is indeed a time and a place to use strong language and to issue rebukes, with biblical support. We mustn\u2019t slander, and we must have compelling rationale to do so. I say it is all abundantly there in Chris Ferrara\u2019s case.<\/p>\n It comes down to specific application. Was it justified, in describing him or not? I say it was. You disagree. But I\u2019m saying that if we are allowed to call anyone a fool at all, that he is a prime candidate to be a recipient of it, based on his relentless attacks on Catholic teaching, popes, ecumenical councils, and orthodox Catholics.<\/p>\n I do agree, though, that the description was best left out of my paper, because people not knowing the background would conclude that it was harsh and a \u201cpersonal attack\u201d (or, possibly that my apologetics writing is habitually characterized by undue polemics, which is untrue).<\/p>\n You just proved my point. Jesus rebuked Pharisees as a group; he did not single out an individual and call him a fool. Likewise, the Wisdom literature refers to types; it singles out no individual for ridicule.<\/span><\/p>\n If you say to a group (Pharisees or Galatians): \u201cyou are fools\u201d I don\u2019t see any ethical distinction between that and saying it to an individual. If it\u2019s wrong to call an individual that, then it would be even more wrong to classify a whole group as such, no?<\/p>\n St. Paul (like the prophets) does single out individuals for strong rebuke or condemnation:<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 1:19-20<\/strong> (RSV) . . . By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith, [20] among them Hymenae\u2019us and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 4:14-15<\/strong> Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will requite him for his deeds. [15] Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message.<\/p>\n 2 Timothy 2:16-18<\/strong> Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, [17] and their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenae\u2019us and Phile\u2019tus, [18] who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. They are upsetting the faith of some.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 5:1-5<\/strong> It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father\u2019s wife. [2] And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. [3] For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment [4] in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, [5] you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Are you saying that he could not possibly have also called such men \u201cfools\u201d: as he did with the Galatians and as Jesus did with the Pharisees?<\/p>\n Calling a group that holds a particular opinion \u201cfools\u201d makes it clearer that one is condemning an opinion and not a person.<\/span><\/p>\n I think there is that aspect, but also it can be seen that when Paul calls the Galatians foolish, or Jesus the Pharisees, they basically mean most in the group, so it is a multiplication of calling one person that; therefore worse.\u00a0That\u2019s a long way from supposedly not being allowed to call anyone<\/em>\u00a0fools or foolish.<\/p>\n My point stands that it is not a good Christian witness to call an individual a name such as fool.<\/span><\/p>\n I believe the Bible provides more than enough information to suggest that there are times to do so. It should be relatively rare, but still. If Jesus and Paul did it, what more evidence do we need? Then people say, \u201cyou\u2019re not Paul,\u201d etc. Never said I was, but he said that we were to imitate him.<\/p>\n But you\u2019ve shown that Jesus and Paul did not<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0call individuals fools.<\/span><\/p>\n And I have been contending that I see no difference. It would be like having five children who all got into some trouble (each one at the same time). So if the parent says to all, \u201cyou fools!\u201d that\u2019s ethically the same as saying it to any individual child.<\/p>\n That\u2019s how it is in Matthew 23. 22:41 states: \u201cNow while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question,\u201d That\u2019s how the encounter started. We don\u2019t know how many there were. It could have been just three or four, for all we know. Sometimes the text says there were just one or two challenging Him.<\/p>\n But why does it matter<\/em>? He\u2019s still talking to real people, directly; not just using \u201cfool\u201d in a parable. So when He says, \u201cYou blind fools\u201d in Matthew 23:17 I don\u2019t see how it makes any difference whatever how many of them there are. If there were three, He was rebuking three; if six, six. What\u2019s the difference<\/em>?<\/p>\n If this is your main argument for maintaining the point that we can never call anyone a fool, I think it\u2019s a weak stance (biblically speaking), with all due respect. Then I showed how Paul said very strong, rebuking things about named individuals, which is essentially the same thing.<\/p>\n I think because this sort of thing is abused all the time, that many want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. People do<\/em><\/strong> abuse and insult so much, that when one makes a legitimate rebuke that is fully warranted, it gets lumped into the verbal abuse<\/em> that goes on all the time.<\/p>\n St. Paul rebuked particular things about named individuals, but he did not call them a name. When Jesus or Paul speaks of \u201cfools,\u201d it is always in the plural to emphasize that they are criticizing foolish ideas and are not labeling individuals. You are not imitating Paul when you call an individual a fool.<\/span><\/p>\n Paul said very harsh things about individuals, as I have shown. He said that Hymenae\u2019us and Alexander were \u201crejecting conscience\u201d and had \u201cmade shipwreck of their faith\u201d and were blaspheming. He said about Hymenae\u2019us and Phile\u2019tus, that they were guilty of \u201cgodless chatter\u201d that would \u201clead people into more and more ungodliness\u201d and that such \u201ctalk\u201d would \u201ceat its way like gangrene.\u201d<\/p>\n All of that is much harsher than my simple \u201cblowhard fool.\u201d All \u201cblowhard\u201d means is \u201ca person who blusters and boasts in an unpleasant way.\u201d Big wow. Ferrara does that more than almost anyone I have ever seen in 21 years online. You have to see it to believe it. If you haven\u2019t, then I think you should, to understand why he richly deserves being called that.<\/p>\n Moreover, if you are correct, then it would be permissible if I referred to a group rather than Ferrara personally. So all I would have had to say to be \u201cbiblical\u201d and \u201cPauline\u201d would be, \u201cThe Remnant is a bunch of blowhard fools.\u201d I don\u2019t see any distinction there. Now I would be calling an entire group that, rather than just one. I wouldn\u2019t even do that regarding the Remnant. But I have lots of experience with Ferrara, and he is the one trashing the pope and often leading the charge.<\/p>\n Jesus called Herod a \u201cfox\u201d (Lk 13:32). Was that<\/em> singling out an individual for what you call \u201cridicule\u201d?<\/p>\n He is making a claim against Herod\u2019s supposed authority to kill him: Herod is a small fry and doesn\u2019t have the ability to carry out his threat.\u00a0<\/span> [see related article<\/a>]<\/p>\n How is that relevant to what we are discussing? The dispute is whether an individuals can be called derogatory names. I have proven that they can, and that Jesus and Paul both did it.<\/p>\n It is relevant. Jesus and Paul criticized individuals\u2019 behavior. The terms they used were very specific and identified attitudes that were problematic. They did not call individuals by generalized, schoolyard names. They did not throw stones at individuals so as to dismiss them and, in effect, poison the well.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cFool\u201d is one of the terms they used. I don\u2019t \u201cpoison the well\u201d with Ferrara. I have engaged in lengthy point-by-point rebuttals of his material: notably regarding the pope\u2019s document on the environment.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n