[marshmallow]

How are the issues with Vatican II irrelevant to the discussion of AL?

I didn't say they were. The author is attempting to wave away the objections to AL essentially by saying ..."hey, other Popes have had issues, too", as if this somehow voids the objections to AL

The question of whether Vatican's II's teaching on religious liberty is in harmony with Leo XIII's teaching is an issue in its own right. An important issue.

However, the question of whether AL is in harmony with Catholic tradition stands or falls on what is written in its own pages. It is an issue in its own right.

Lopez's method of argument is known as "diversion". To say that because there have been disputes over the writings of previous Pope's therefore the arguments over the writings of this Pope must be ill-founded, is ridiculous and irrelevant.

They're independent issues.

[piusv]

They are not independent issues. They are very much related. Although I disagree with how they are relating AL with Vatican II (i.e. that the issues with AL are no big deal because past popes have had similar issues), I agree that the issues are very much related.

The problem is that they are defending both. Neither one of them should be defended. Both go against Catholic teaching. AL is just the latest and greatest heretical document.