Sometimes you have to be active. Or you get fat and wonder "WTF happened to me?"

J.R. Dunn argues at American Thinker:

The same-sex “marriage” vote in Ireland marks the largest victory for the LGBT movement thus far.  It’s quite a feather in the gay boa – an apparent success in yanking one of the most heterosexual cultures on Earth out of the closet.

In truth, the vote was very likely a rebuke to the Catholic Church, which in Ireland, as everywhere else in the industrialized West, hired a lot of gays to act as priests, who exploited numberless teenage boys for sexual purposes, and then did nothing about it.  The Irish Church tried to coast through the crisis, and this is its reward – a fitting one.

We can add the fact the Irish Church did nothing to defend marriage from the current assault.  I know that without even researching it, because the American Church is effectively an extension of the Irish Church, and the American Church has done nothing to protect marriage during the current debate.  A serious, well-organized, and well-funded response to the gay campaign among Catholics simply has not occurred in any meaningful sense.

This is also true of the rest of this country’s institutions, conservatism prominent among them.

We’re told that when the matter came up, establishment conservatives effectively laughed the whole thing off with the line, “Does this mean I can marry my cat?”  Conservatives did not take the matter seriously, and they are now caught with little to say.  Some did worse, such as the odious Robert Gates, whose speech to the Boy Scouts reveals his historical role to be a kind of Jack Ketch who handles the dirty work that liberals don’t want to touch.

.....

The marriage argument will develop in similar fashion.  The facts stand for themselves and will not be changed.  As time passes and the actual anti-family, anti-religious, and anti-straight agenda of the gays is revealed, it will no longer be taken as a greeting-card issue.  Then the real debate will begin.
All that we need are fighters. 

The rest can go marry their cats.

These types of articles tend to bring out the anti-Catholic non-"progressives", which is an odd part of the conservative wing, but Dunn does bring up decent points throughout his article. Pope Francis is practically a fucking no show. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (what the fuck have they done in the past decade?) tend to be liberal and not orthodox -- they're like the black cloaks US justice aka The Ringwraiths. We have plenty doormat Catholics & Christians saying "Well I don't agree with your lifestyle, and you aren't hurting me so hakuna matata. Love everybody," bullshit. In other words, the Catholic Church led by Pope Francis, the fat bishops of the US and horrid layman soldiers of the faith have done a horrid job saying "Same-sex relationships and 'marriage' is fucked up." Overall the Church and its people have done a better job at standing against abortion. That's it. The Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) seem to be more active in evangelizing their faith than Catholics -- though I say this fresh off of watching youtube vidoes of missionaries talking about their experiences, and seeing a couple of them school kids at basketball.

As much as I think Mike Voris' approach to spreading the gospel as a bit brash, at least he has the guts to go out into public and put some sort of steel backbone in the Catholic faith. Heck, he's more active than smiling, waving and "Let's-be-nice" Pope Francis.

I know that the media actively tries to paint him as an LGBT and feminist apologist, but there are times where defenders of the pope's "media mistranslated his quote" excuse becomes just that - an excuse, an excuse for his lack of directness and clear cut stance on social issues. People said Pope Benedict the XVI looked like a rat; just based on aesthetics Pope Frances is seen as "more likeable" (reminds when the media was concerned a POTUS candidate's "likeability" over his policies, qualifications and personal character). It's obvious Pope Benedict isn't nearly as popular with the public as Pope Francis is yet I feel the Church had a much better leader in Pope Benedict than Pope Francis. Some will say "It's just a different type of leadership, so it's absurd to compare." I disagree. As someone who has lead various organizations I'll be completely honest and say Pope Francis' leadership is like Corey Crawford as a goalie: Lets in "soft" goals, is more mediocre than actually great and a person who looks good because of a better than average defense.