[Jim Noble]

Your “reform” then was to bring in effeminitized clergy, and women, and chase away the real men?

1) It's not MY reform. I was in protestant Sunday School at the time. My married homosexual alcoholic youth minister was very enthusiastic about V II, we studied it all the time. I'm merely a well-informed observer.

2) By "reform", I was referring to the pervasive control over the Church by powerful homosexual leaders like Spellman and O'Connell.

3) If you think V II was (among other things) a "turn towards protestantism", I think you're right. Given the enormous homosexual corruption of the pre-Vatican II American church, JXXIII had a limited menu of options to work with. I understand the opinion that he made unwise choices, you may be correct about that.

4) The judgement of the fruits of V II should be made independently of the nature of AmChurch in the 1940s and 1950s - a church run by powerful homosexual cardinals who created a system to groom and ordain the Birminghams, the Shanleys, the Geoghans who were unleashed on Catholic families before V II was even convened.

5) THAT was the reality of AmChurch in the 1950s, and presenting it as a faithful witness to the gospel and a faithful disciple of the Holy Spirit (in opposition to V II) is misguided.

[verdugo]

Very good response. But I didn't see the author extolling the Amchurch of the 1940-50’s. I certainly never have extolled it, I agree with what you wrote. While there were effeminates and progressivist before Vatican II (or else there would not have existed any at VatII), what the author is saying, is that Vatican II official opened the door to the effeminates and progressivists TOTAL takeover.

[steve86]

All that criticism of the Church in the 50s and yet the liturgy was perfect.