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.