Just to add to my post above, Vatican II was out of date pretty much immediately–not those points of perennial doctrine it repeats that are never out of date, but its pastoral outlook and approach (its predominate concern).
Pope St. John XXIII in his opening speech orients the Council’s approach in light of specific circumstances. For example, he says “the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians…is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.” This presumption proved to ultimately be invalid immediately, if it were even accurate when he said it (hindsight is of course 20/20).
Likewise, with regard to the errors in the world, he says
But all such error is so manifestly contrary to rightness and goodness, and produces such fatal results, that our contemporaries show every inclination to condemn it of their own accord—especially that way of life which repudiates God and His law, and which places excessive confidence in technical progress and an exclusively material prosperity. It is more and more widely understood that personal dignity and true self-realization are of vital importance and worth every effort to achieve. More important still, experience has at long last taught men that physical violence, armed might, and political domination are no help at all in providing a happy solution to the serious problems which affect them.
Again, with hindsight, this proved to be not the case at all almost immediately. If those presumptions remained true, Vatican II’s approach might have been more fruitful (or it might not have, we’ll never know).
In any event, the contingent nature of the Council’s approach is noted by the Council itself in its acts, and in the explanations of the relators to the bishops. For one example, Gaudium et spes, in its first footnote, says:
Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one…Interpreters must bear in mind—especially in part two—the changeable circumstances which the subject matter, by its very nature, involves.
It is time to simply leave Vatican II behind in the era it was intended for and move on. It’s “transitory” approach and analysis of the circumstances of the world needs to be re-evaluated. We need to look both to prior approaches that consistently bore fruit in many different circumstances, including those like ours (and which continue to do so today in the few places they are adopted) as well as other approaches more suited to a world growing more and more hostile to the faith and a Church more and more willing to go along with it. And yet, despite its general fruitlessness, our leadership seems to stick to these out-of date views rigidly and intransigently, sometimes even seeming more open to re-evaluating those things in the Church which are immutable…
And all I did was summarize in rhetorical form the problems with Vatican II that @Genesis315 mentioned above (with a little bit of extra from the Catholic news cycle from the past few months). 