This statement is incorrect. The only thing that changed since the 1960s is that the church's scandals are all exposed to more intense scrutiny.
As someone pointed out on another thread last week, most of the depraved freaks in the Catholic clergy who are involved in these homosexual scandals were ordained BEFORE Vatican II.
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.