Typical post Vatican II speak, where words are used to confuse rather than communicate. Seems like God has chosen these Vatican II popes who are reluctant to teach clearly for fear of being rejected so that the world will not be further condemned for rejecting clear teachings:
"To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but to them that are without, all things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand: lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them"
Everyone is "without".
Leoni: “Seems like God has chosen these Vatican II popes who are reluctant to teach clearly for fear of being rejected so that the world will not be further condemned for rejecting clear teachings.”
I don’t know how you can make this statement without being able to support it with positive evidence.
And that would be quite impossible to do since there is no way that one can say whether or not they were “reluctant to teach clearly for fear of rejection.” That is simply a conjecture for which you provide no factual evidence.
“Seems like” is not sufficient proof for reading the minds of popes.
BTW, of course they were popes who came in the time after Vatican II. Does that fact alone (time sequence) put a scarlet letter on them? I think not.
There are many societal and cultural realities that can be factored in to the rejection of the clear teachings of the Church (such teachings including Pope Paul VI’s “Humanae Vitae”).It hardly needs pointing out that such realities are an important factor in the flow of social trends and events. The assumption that the blame for rejection of Church teachings lies with 3 popes is just that—an assumption, and one that can’t be made as proven fact.