I would not hold that V.II caused the problems in the Church, but I don’t think V.II gave the Church what she needed. People sometimes cite Trent as a ‘hurling down of anathemas’, by which they mean to imply that it is inappropriate to anathematize; they argue that the Church was fighting the Protestant heresy and was thus led into a ‘shell’: the Church is always stronger when she clarifies herself through conflict. At every turn, when disagreement arose, the Church emerged the stronger for clarifying what the truth was. The clash with modernism requires equally clear treatment.
After Trent, the Church was quite healthy, but there are many, many problems now. It isn’t the case that V.II taught errors, but it isn’t necessarily the case that V.II was exactly ‘what the doctor ordered’. A lot of wiggle room was left in documents, room that was subsequently exploited by aggressive theologians and bishops who wanted to push the envelope and drive the Church toward what might be called modernism, e.g. refusing to assert the details of the faith and the differences between the faith and other views of God, and tampering with the liturgy far in excess of what the Council actually ordered.
What was needed at the time was not a series of vague, documents but, e.g., clear statements about modesty in dress, the importance of care in selecting reading and viewing materials: remember that we are in the world but should not be of the world.
“The fruits of V.II” might be thought to subsume all those things which happened in the wake of the Council, which strictly speaking aren’t necessarily the fault of the Council. They may be the fault of Church management. A commonplace example of faulty Church management is in the news every other month or so: the huge problem with bishops ferrying sexual predators from parish to parish: Why isn’t there a consequence for those who facilitated the sin for which millstones are prescribed? When someone asks you to comment on the ‘fruits of V.II’ you can’t deny that there are problems. The primary contribution of V.II is vague language that ended up permitting a great deal of mischief.
Many of the putative benefits of V.II are dubious. People believe that the Bible is now more fully read, but an article I have previously mentioned demonstrates that many critical segments of the Gospels are omitted from Sunday cycles, segments that detail hell, or woman in church, and other topics that modern man doesn’t want to hear. People believe that the liturgy is now adapted to the needs of diverse cultures, but with participation falling dramatically, and given the need for (and ecclesiastical tradition of seeking) unity, it is hard to suppose that needs are being met. Participation of the faithful is another oft-cited advance, but now only a small fraction of Catholics even attend Sunday Mass, so their participation is zero; also the traditional rite of Mass allows for very reverent partipation: this fact must never be a requirement for anyone, however, as that would breed resentment: indeed, the “traditionalist” does not seek to impose the traditional rite on all, but merely wants it to be available, without tampering. Lay people are now supposed to exercise ministries, but religious orders have collapsed; their growth is a standard measure of the life of the Church. Lay people are all very good and well, but it is the religious who lead the way in giving an example of a life of prayer.
Making these observations in no wise renders me unCatholic. Indeed it is my right, and my duty, to observe the objective reality, and to be clear about my spiritual needs. The Catholic faith has never ignored objective reality in any field – no, not even in astronomy. And, if you are asked about the “fruits”, you simply have to tell the truth: there are problems. Then you must be able to explain where the problems come from. Blaming the world is not good enough, not by a long shot.
