Replies

Vatican II actually didn't [impose upon Catholic States to give up on the principle of only recognizing the Catholic religion]

This is from 'The Biography Marcel Lefebvre' by Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais:
"In implementing the council, the Holy See had its Nuncios ask Catholic countries to give up on the principle of only recognizing the Catholic religion; in Colombia as in Spain, the constitution was changed in this way, in spite of the heads of states publicly expressing their disgust at such a measure. In Valais, Bishop Adam wrote to the Catholics in his diocese asking them to approve the suppression of the article in the Valaisian Constitution recognizing the Catholic religion. The vote on March 17, 1974, ratified the suppression of this article."

("Religious freedom ... leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ").

And it also declared:
2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others within due limits.

IOW, each individual is his own authority. No one can or should require anything contrary to what a person has deemed right for himself. How does this not obliterate the rights of Christ completely out of society? How is anything other than a denial of a Supreme Authority?

Those that had been pushing for secularization then simply ignored the letter of the Council and ran with its 'spirit'.

There's a tendency to forget that those who ran with the 'spirit' are those who wrote the letter.

In implementing the council, the Holy See had its Nuncios ask Catholic countries to give up on the principle of only recognizing the Catholic religion; in Colombia as in Spain, the constitution was changed in this way, in spite of the heads of states publicly expressing their disgust at such a measure. In Valais, Bishop Adam wrote to the Catholics in his diocese asking them to approve the suppression of the article in the Valaisian Constitution recognizing the Catholic religion. The vote on March 17, 1974, ratified the suppression of this article.

Yep - see, there's nothing about Vatican II requiring any of it. It was the initiative of the Holy See. If the concordats of the Holy See prove the meaning of "Vatican II", I say that the unchanged concordat with the Dominican Republic shows that you are mistaken:

In the name of the Most Holy Trinity ... The Catholic, Apostolic, Roman religion continues to be the religion of the Dominican Nation and will enjoy the rights and prerogatives which pertain to it in conformity with Divine Law and Canon Law. (source)

There's a tendency to forget that those who ran with the 'spirit' are those who wrote the letter.

Hardly. There were 2000 bishops at the Council, but there certainly weren't 2000 of them hanging around afterwards to direct the Secretariat of State. Here is what the bishops at the Council were told they were decreeing, by the official spokesman for the drafting commission of the Declaration on Religious Freedom:

As regards the substance of the problem, the point should be made that, while the papal documents up to Leo XIII insisted more on the moral duty of public authorities toward the true religion, the recent Supreme Pontiffs, while retaining this doctrine, complement it by highlighting another duty ... The text presented to you today recalls more clearly the duties of the public authority towards the true religion; from which it is manifest that this part of the doctrine has not been overlooked. (same source)

IOW, each individual is his own authority. No one can or should require anything contrary to what a person has deemed right for himself. How does this not obliterate the rights of Christ completely out of society? How is anything other than a denial of a Supreme Authority?

This logically leads to the claim that we should compel pagans to the faith and forcibly baptize the children of unbelievers.

The Council rightly recognized that "Could it be that in certain circumstances He would not give men any mandate, would not impose any duty, and would not even communicate the right to impede or to repress what is erroneous and false? A look at things as they are gives an affirmative answer. ... the affirmation: religious and moral error must always be impeded, when it is possible, because toleration of them is in itself immoral, is not valid absolutely and unconditionally. Moreover, God has not given even to human authority such an absolute and universal command in matters of faith and morality" (Pius XII, Address to Italian Jurists, Dec. 6, 1953). The conclusions of the Declaration on Religious Freedom follow logically from the recognition that the coercive power of the State has as its function only protecting the common good or a "just public order" (DH §7; CCC 2109): safeguard of the rights of all citizens, adequate solicitude for genuine public peace, and proper guardianship of public morality, according to the requirements of the objective moral order. Actions which go beyond the purpose of the civil power are the circumstances in which God "would not even communicate the right to impede or to repress what is erroneous and false" - such actions are therefore unjust, and all men have a natural right to not suffer injustice from the State, even when this injustice is visited upon them in return for their own crimes and sins.