The bishops scuttled the idea that some (primarily nuns, priests, and bishops) should aim to be holy while most laity need not bother. In its place, they insisted that holiness is the responsibility of every Catholic.

Were the bishops not correct in this? Is holiness not the responsibility of every Catholic?

Surely it's not impossible to elevate the religious life without dismissing the necessity of holiness for the laity.

I was introduced to a book recently that equated pre-VII popes to modern feminists for their mutual role in belittling the vocation of motherhood. My visceral reaction was that the comparison was insane, but maybe there's a least a grain of truth to the premise.

To be a spiritual mother is a greater thing than to be a biological mother, isn't it?

I see the two more like possibly achieving an A (laity) versus an A+ (religious) rather than like a D and an A+. The A+ is better in both comparisons, but is it true that the pre-VII Church saw parenting as never better than a "D" and eliminated the possibility of achieving holiness as a lay person?

From what I have read of Double Crossed: Uncovering the Catholic Church's Betrayal of American Nuns by Kenneth Briggs so far, the reason female religious got hit the hardest after Vatican II (teaching sisters down 94%, much worse than priestly vocations!) is because of Vatican II's leveling of the married and religious states (and lay and sacerdotal states):and because of the difficulty in upholding the vow of obedience (even more difficult than that of chastity), among other reasons.

I did not see this thread before.

Yes, exalting the sacrament of marriage and reducing the religious state had devastating effects on teaching sisters and cloistered nuns alike as the life of prayer was demeaned while the active life of social justice was praised. Thus, Vatican II forced more sisters into the "Social Justice" and "Social Service" profession along with the nefarious business of cнιℓd тrαffιcking and associated political activism to protect such wicked deeds. Was pedophilia the driving force behind Vatican II?

One of the reasons why I left the novitiate was the problem caused by this "vow" of obedience. We were assured that we would never be given an obedience where we would be placed in a near occasion of sin. However, during the novitiate, we were enrolled in college classes where we were expected to excel. With all the duties we had, there was little time left to study. Yet, studying was part of our obedience. Something had to give. Many novices took a flashlight to bed and read their books under their covers, even taking notes, which was rather difficult. Then due to lack of sleep, they became sick, and their grades suffered.

After leaving the novitiate, and entering a Catholic university, I became acquainted with the teaching sisters at that college. One nun in particular was a very holy sister. She resisted the post-Vatican II modernization of the habit. Later, the nuns wore no religious garb at all -- just a black blazer, white blouse, and a knee-length black skirt. This nun, however, persisted in wearing the habit. With pressure from her fellow religious increasing, she finally left that order, kept her vows, and found other devout religious who had felt similar pressure to modernize, but who had resisted.

With the Vatican II push for social action, the Divine Office was reduced to just Lauds, Vespers, and Compline. Later, two to three teaching nuns were allowed to live in apartments together.  However, many religious sisters were seduced either by their fellow religious (special friendships), by priests., or by a male teacher. Thus, many religious left their convents and returned to the world.

When I was in the convent, we were told to avoid special friendships, as the real meaning was obscured. However, with Vatican II, the popularity of special friendships increased as "nuns" moved into apartments two by two, stopped praying, shed their habits, and started living ungodly lives.

Yes, it was a gigantic betrayal and it seemed like the Jesuits, Franciscans, and Dominicans were complicit. Not all were corrupt, but it only took a small minority of religious in each house to corrupt the rest. Remember one bad apple in a barrel of apples can spoil the rest.

When I was a novice, we were allowed to pray with professed nuns during the summer. This was a way of getting acquainted with the professed sisters. I remember being shocked as some of the older nuns were mocking the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary. As much as I wanted to stay in the convent, their lack of piety was unnerving, so I started to feel like a fish out of water.

Also in those summer months, when the college was not in regular session, the college would have special speaking events, usually the newly hired professors for the Fall semester. Most of these events hosted talks on the Docuмents of Vatican II, and the changes that we could expect. Some talks were given on Teilhard de Chardin, praising him. These events jarred me even more.

At the beginning of that fateful summer, we were assigned to read a nefarious book, The Sister's Vow of Chastity. After one week of being given that book to read, about five novices left saying that they wanted to get married and that they could not wait  to light up a cigarette. This book described the sɛҳuąƖ act in the greatest detail, sparing no details, and no surprise, it was written by a priest, who obviously was very experienced in  this subject. He was most likely not a virgin anymore. This book extolled the Sacrament of Marriage while stating that the monastic life was not a sacrament, and thus, it did not carry any sacramental graces. The questions raised were grave. If sex were so great, and the married life was so exalted as its purpose was to procreate and raise saints, then why remain a virgin?


So, yes, it seemed like Vatican II and the author of The Sister's Vow of Chastity were trying to deceive and seduce most if not all of us.