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.
Do they write clear? NOT! Is Vatican II clear? NOT! No conjecture there. God allowed them to be popes for our times as a punishment to those who would not listen even if they spoke clear.
Read any and all documents from Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XII, Pius XII. Then read any and all from Vatican II, JPII, and B16. Even Humanae Vitae has birth control loopholes written ambiguously into it. Read Pius XI on the same subject, it's clear. It's all there for anyone to see, before John XXIII and after John XXIII, two different objectives in writing. One is up front teaching clear truths, the other is, unclear and verbose.