More fruits of the "pastoral Council" and the Conciliar revolution. Fifty years on, in many South American nations, - including those that were almost 100% Catholic during the last century and before the 1960s - for the first time in recent history, the number of Catholics is less than 50%.

Courtesy an excellent article from Rorate, tables in the link - http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-latin-american-exodus-catholics.html

The Latin American Exodus: Catholics become Protestants in Droves
This is perhaps the key quote to understand the report released by the Pew Research Center yesterday on Religion in Latin America (versión en español aquí), which confirms another one released earlier this year by Latinobarómetro:

    Historical data suggest that for most of the 20th century, from 1900 through the 1960s, at least 90% of Latin America’s population was Catholic.

What happened exactly in the 1960s?...

The reference is extremely appropriate, so let us try to remember: it is always affirmed by those who say that the collapse in almost all Catholic indicators that followed the Second Vatican Council was a coincidence that the 1960s and 1970s were an era of strong secularization and that the collapse would have happened anyway.

Well, that would explain the collapse in Western Europe, North America, and Australia. But in Latin America (where the current pope studied to be a priest during the 1960s, being ordained in December 1969), what happened instead during the same period was an intense religious revival. But instead of it being channeled through the traditional structures of Catholic life, these same traditional structures were being dismantled by the Latin American hierarchy inebriated with the spirit of aggiornamento, and Latin Americans, who just wanted pure religious life, converted in droves to Protestantism, the only "space" in which they could find signs of the Christian message.

In Honduras, the country of the most powerful man in the Roman Curia today after the Pope, Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga (who has been a bishop in the capital since 1978, first as auxiliary then as Archbishop), the hierarchy led by him managed the amazing feat of transforming that country in the first Catholic-minority nation in Central America, a vertiginous fall from 94% to 46% in the same period - and the same happened in Uruguay, across the Rio de la Plata from Buenos Aires:

As we concluded in that previous post:

    In the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, whose influence in Latin America was widely and deeply felt by all the faithful in the region since the beginning, in particular by way of radical and immediate liturgical upheaval and of the various "Latin American conference docuмents" (Medellín, Puebla, Santo Domingo, Aparecida), it can only be said that, as the Latin American Church insisted on a poorly-understood and anti-traditional version of Christian poverty, making what the hierarchy thought would be a "preferential option for the poor," the poor made a preferential option for Protestantism. As the Church abandoned traditional spirituality and worship for mundane politicized concerns and liturgy, many faithful looked for authentic spirituality wherever they could find it. They found it elsewhere.

The Maradiaga principle has been tried and tested, its effect is abysmal, as proved by the clear numbers. The liberal-and-liberation-theology experiment in Latin America did not work. It will not work when applied to the world stage, either, and may even hinder the growth of Catholicism in those few strongly conservative nations, such as those in Africa, where a muscular, morally strong, and orthodox Catholic faith is still spreading out confidently.

Do you think it is even remotely likely the leaders of the Church, when confronted with this increasingly incontrovertible evidence of the horrible fruits of their pastoral policy, are going to reverse course? Or are they going to go full speed ahead and even faster in their revolution against the Kingship of Christ?

From what I have read,(?) Latin America catholics were taken in by accepting contraceptives.  Watch Tower and Jehova witnesses were behind it.  I live in AZ and I have seen the destruction of these 2 sects and witches are in the highest of jobs and this is not surprising with secret societies who do just that.

The question is - how did the Protestants even break into the solidly Catholic cultures of South America so quickly?

It was a black operation. The CIA sent these "missionaries" into South America (and the Philippines) to keep the soils fertilized for the seeds of the American Empire, which is now, as it ever has been, a Masonic Empire, utterly inimical to the Catholic Faith and Church. And all bases were covered - thus these CIA shills known as "Protestant Missionaries" were going out to receive the droves of Catholics who would flee from the Church in the wake of that selfsame Second Vatican Council whose novelties were inspired, authored, and championed in no small part by inordinately influential men like John Courtney Murray and Cardinal Spellman, who were themselves Americanist CIA stooges in league with powerful CIA media operatives like Henry Luce.

Russia was not the only nation spreading her errors in the 20th Century.

I may have gone too far here in calling Cardinal Spellman a "CIA stooge." While I believe without question tat he had open Americanist tendencies, I have no positive evidence that he was actively working at the behest of the CIA. However, there is much stronger evidence tying John Courtney Murray to the CIA, and Cardinal Spellman's ongoing association with Murray (and the Kennedys), and his bringing Murray to the Council, where he wielded such inordinate power and influence, is at least pretty compelling circuмstantial evidence that he was working - at least indirectly - for the CIA's interests.

Of course, if nothing else, traditional Catholics have bragging rights, we can tell Catholics in the mainstream Church, we told you so, 50 years ago. Both Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ottaviani, as well as other heroic prelates at the Council like Joseph Fenton, not only opposed John Courtney Murray and the other heretics who were trying to laicize Catholic societies and completely separate Church and State, but they also predicted Christian countries in South America in particular would be overrun by heresy if the Council's schema was adopted.

The consequences that the Archbishop predicted, and worse, have come to pass due to the Council’s new program. Cardinal Ottaviani likewise predicted that the Council’s religious liberty would result in South America’s being overrun with Protestantism.

In the preparatory period before the Council, Cardinal Ottaviani had prepared a detailed schema on the proper relationship between Church and State, with something like 12 pages of footnotes from past Magisterial teaching and Scripture and Tradition. The liberals threw it out, wanting to begin over with their Masonic, Sillonist and Americanist ideas. Archbishop Lefebvre expressed amazement a docuмent purporting to speak of religious rights and duties could say nothing of the rights of Christ the King and of the duties of all men toward His sovereign reign and immutable law.

As Pope Pius VII said in a similar context, "There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered." And as the period also proves, religious indifference is only a step away from moral indifference.

While insisting on that same failed unhealthy dose of even more liberation theology, quasi-socialist economics, corrupt liturgy, liberalism, latitudinarianiasm, moral license and religious liberty as the solution to all these ills, the Roman authorities have not yet begun to see that the traditional teaching is the only solution, it is a binding obligation for every state, especially where the Church has already been established, to be confessionally and constitutionally Catholic, and it is the duty of the Vatican to tell them this, whereas they did the reverse in the decades following the Council. It is also necessary for the State to take every reasonable step to promote truth and prevent the spread of error, to teach and foster the practice of virtue and Faith, to condemn and limit the practice of vice and heresy as far as possible. It's time for them to see the reality, and even now, it's not too late to self-correct before it gets even worse.  

At the end of the day, people leave the Church because they WANT to leave the Church.  Sure, they're helped along by Prot propaganda, but it resonated with their tickling ears.  They don't want to accept the Church's moral teachings, and so the Prots serve them up some "justification" or "rationalization" for why the Catholic Church is wrong.  They were LOOKING for an excuse to get out, and the Prots just obliged them and served it up on a silver platter.  Nothing is more appealing to people who don't want to keep the moral law than "Faith Alone" and "Sin Boldly".  Just BeLEEEEEVE in Jesus and you will be saved ... regardless of how many times you fornicate each week.

God withdrew the light of the Church from the world and put her into eclipse precisely because people didn't deserve her anymore.  People of good will can find the Church even now, but God hides the Church from those who didn't REALLY want her to begin with.

We give the enemies of the Church FAR too much credit.  God could smite them all in an instant.  If people are losing the faith it's because the do not deserve it.