Give Me Attila the Hun--Fr. Dwight Longenecker

[JimG]

Give Me Attila the Hun - Crisis Magazine

 

[InThePew]

So much for love thy neighbour! Somebody protesting on their own behalf (or their “tribe”) obviously has something to gain but the flaw in Fr Longnecker’s argument is that this doesn’t mean they don’t have a valid point. Calling people “crybaby bullies” and “barbarians” is hardly a constructive (nor Christian) response - if anything, degenerating to the level of name calling, is usually indicative of a desire to avoid acknowledging the validity of this point.

 

[Dovekin]

If only Fr Longnecker knew something about Attila, he might not long for the supposedly “honest” battle strategies.

A principal leader of the Roman military was Aetius, who had spent some time among the Huns in his earlier years, no doubt becoming aware of Attila, the second son of a king.

And then there was Honoria, daughter and sister of Emperors. She provided a pretext for the invasion of Italy by sending Attila a ring and a plea for help. Attila read it as an offer of marriage (with half the empire as dowry). So much for “honest” conflict between barbarian brutes without self righteous, pompous overtones.

The Fr Longneckers of the day would probably have spent their days complaining about the intrigues of the Empire with their effete military, the rampant immorality of Huns and Romans, etc. Meanwhile, Pope Leo engaged with the enemy and convinced him not to sack Rome. (a scenario that found its way into the lives of some Saints in Gaul from that time…) Dialogue was a precious weapon for Popes of those days as well as of today.

 

[JimG]

From the article:

Had you chosen to stand up to Attila the Hun, as did Pope Leo the Great, you might have had some success. Attila was a reasonable man. He was willing to negotiate and was open to a hefty bribe. Not so the ideological barbarians fomenting revolution. Anything you offer them will be thrown back in your face.

 

[Weserthy]

The point of the article is that these so-called “protesters” cannot be reasoned with. If you ever have to ask yourself, would they tear down a statue of X, the answer is yes, no matter who it is. There is no method to what they choose to destroy, because their goal isn’t to destroy racism, their goal is to destroy the fundamental pillars that nations like America were built on. There is no point in trying to debate these people with reason, saying things like “hey, that guy’s statue you tore down actually fought for your rights!” It doesn’t matter. They hate America because in their view it was built on white supremacy, imperialism, and racism in general. Traditional institutions like the Catholic Church are hated by them for the same reason. It doesn’t matter how many poor people the Church helps or what acts of charity it does. To them the Church is an enemy because it supports racism and imperialism.

The end goal isn’t police reform, or tearing down Confederate statues. Do people really think it will stop there? These people are here to destroy. They are not here to dialogue. America and the Church as a whole is probably going to lose this battle because of a failure to recognize what the true aims of the other side really are. There’s a reason good bishops like Archbishop Cordileone are performing exorcisms on the sites of toppled statues and protests. Because there are demons at work in this movement. Trying to play nice and trying to convince them that we are not racists and good people is a fruitless endeavor. It was never about that; it’s about destroying traditional institutions and remaking things into a secular “paradise”.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Had you chosen to stand up to Attila the Hun, as did Pope Leo the Great, you might have had some success. Attila was a reasonable man. He was willing to negotiate and was open to a hefty bribe. Not so the ideological barbarians fomenting revolution. Anything you offer them will be thrown back in your face.

He wasn’t just open to bribes. It was his business franchise.

Basically he had a comparatively small rabble of men around him but through clever tactics was able to create the impression of a far larger and murderously cruel army. So he actualy preferred taking bribes to actually going into a battle he could easily lose. He invested everything he could into upholding his reputation as a bloodthirsty warload, interested only in wholesale destruction of anything that got in his way. He fooled most of Europe into believing him.

The present day barbarians don’t need to play the part because they are actually only interested in destruction.