[NYer]

The records, released after nearly three years of legal wrangling, cover priests who were ordained as far back as the 1920s.

In other words, this problem has been around for a long time and is NOT the result of Vatican Council II.

[narses]

" In other words, this problem has been around for a long time and is NOT the result of Vatican Council II."

That's right. It would be better said that the abuses of Vatican II (the so called "Spirit of Vatican II") are the result of the problem - that being the infiltration of communists into the seminaries starting in the 1920's. That attempted destruction of our Holy Mother the Church has been systematic, large scale and well financed through most of the XXth Century.

[dsc]

"In other words, this problem has been around for a long time and is NOT the result of Vatican Council II."

Of course there were incidents of priestly misconduct prior to Vat II.

However, we can't even guess at any effect that Vat II might have had without a lot more information, a good deal of which may never be available.

Aside from the obvious (numbers of incidents, hetero vs. homo, age of victims, etc.), what were the attitudes among priests before and after Vat II? Were their Bishops as faithless as Weakland and Mahoney prior to Vat II?

If subversive elements were present in the Church prior to Vat II, what role did Vat II play in elevating them to positions of authority, in making them the "mainstream?"

Even if we agree that Vat II did not cause this or that, it seems clear that it exacerbated existing problems, gave heretics a seat at the head of the table, and provided modernists numerous pretexts to introduce novelties.