It is true that Vatican II was not a spontaneous event. It was the culmination of decades and centuries of the modernist heresy that prior popes had warned against. But the changes since then go way beyond exposure of scandal. The liturgy was changed, not just translated but stripped of much of much of its mystery and content (and guitars replaced organs, applause at Mass became common, communion rails were removed, confession pretty much died off, and annulments became common).
Perhaps more importantly, important doctrinal changes (or obfuscations) were imposed such as in regard to the necessity to one's salvation of being a Catholic (I am talking about the documents on ecumensim and religious liberty). If it isn't necessary for non-Catholics to become Catholics, then many Catholics reached the conclusion that it wasn't necessary for them either. It also might have caused many to question the entire history of the Church's missionary activities (what was the purpose of all those missionaries sacrificing their lives to convert Indians who did not need to be converted?).
What Buchanan is pointing out, correctly I believe, is that homosexual priest scandal is part of a larger milieu of ill discipline and relativism that is very much related to the spirit of Vatican II. Yet, Pope John Paul II himself still goes on about how great Vatican II was, which perhaps explains why he has been so ineffective in addressing the current scandal. As for the comment about the Devil entering the Church's windows when they were opened to the world, Pat is obviously alluding to Pope Paul VI's comment that the "smoke of Satan" had entered the Church.
Careful.
This is Feeneyite territory.
It is impossible for a Catholic to declare that a virtuous person, not knowing of Christ, CANNOT be saved.
This would contradict Justice--not a likely event.
An Italian reporter quoted someone from the Vatican as stating that JPII has some sort of "spiritual" connection with Vatican II. He is utterly convinced that it was the best thing for the Church -- nevermind objective reality as pointed out so clearly by Buchanan above. Your post was well-stated. Until more Catholics see the 800 pound gorilla in front of them, the decline will continue. A return of the Mass would go a long way toward turning the whole thing around. Some have speculated that JPI was contemplating just such a move before his untimely death...
It's an all out flaming blaze.
I have a friend who is a traditionalist priest in the Fraternity of St. Peter, and he has told me that the decades leading up to Vatican II were actually the low point in recent church history. The problem, he says, is that Catholic moral teachings were so "strong" at the time that the church ceased to be the counter-cultural force it had always been and became very much "part of the culture" (imagine Archbishop Fulton Sheen not only on network television, but generating the highest ratings in the New York City market!).
The result of this "cultural strength" was that people in predominantly Catholic areas no longer had to make an exceptional effort to distinguish themselves in a secular world -- why would anyone need to, when Catholics in most cities identified themselves by their parish instead of their neighborhood?). This "Catholic strength" was soon translated into the secular realm in the form of labor unions, corrupting political power, etc., and it was only a matter of time (specifically the post-WWII era when Catholics "came of age" and became typical American suburbanites) before "lukewarm" became the defining characteristic of Catholicism in the U.S.
Sure, things are messy right now. But increasing numbers of Catholics are seizing upon marvelous opportunities to turn away from the silly, bland Modernism that dominates the parish scene these days and are getting serious about their faith. The numbers that Pat Buchanan quotes are meaningless -- Christ Himself said that the gate to eternal life is narrow, so the notion that there are 52 million "Catholics" in this country is irrelevant.