Let's examine logical fallacies: you state
"I could easily provide some rather rosy statistics on the rise of Catholicism in Africa." without stating that the African Bishops have not ordained homosexuals wholesale; and without stating that the African Bishops have been perfectly willing to address SIN (all of the possibilities) on a regular basis.
You further forget to mention Europe, which shares many pre-existing and post-traumatic syndromes with the USA.
You state: "And most importantly there is no discussion of the biblical basis for Vatican II - only a dry statistical discussion."
What??? Buchanan's editorial is based on a statistical survey, not a theological treatise.
Tell you what: YOU provide the theology. We await.
PJ's conclusion is the following: "Vatican II appears to have been an unrelieved disaster for Roman Catholicism".
He backs his conclusion with United States statistics only.
He would have been more accurate to claim "Vatican II appears to have been an unrelieved disaster for Roman Catholicism in America".
However, this is not even accurate since he does not provide any kind of link between the implementation of Vatican II and the results he presents. Its sort of like saying "My brother in Louisiana died last year" then blaming it on the mosquitos. (Did your brother die of West Nile or was he hit by a car?).