The Council or the Pill? What is to blame?

I just finished reading this piece over at CatholicCulture.org.  Dr. Mirus makes some good points, but in my opinion, does himself a disservice by not actually referring to Dr. Grisez's works concerning the development of Humanae vitae.  I have referenced before Dr. Grisez's analysis of why the comission majority would want to change Tradition.  Apparently, Dr. Mirus either a) didn't read it or b) didn't see what I saw.  According to Dr. Grisez, one of the reasons the comission was willing to change Tradition was because of the view espoused by a large number of the Council Fathers, that the Church and World were co-equal, and should reflect each other. 

It should also be noted that Dr. Grisez also mentioned the radical changing of the liturgy after the Council as a reason for thinking Tradition could be changed.  Their reasoning: if something so sacred as the Mass can be radically redone, why not doctrine?  More needs to be said on this end.  The fact that the Novus Ordo is most definitely NOT the Mass prescribed by the Council, and yet was promulgated and approved by the Holy Father and lauded by many Council Fathers reveals that while the teaching of the Council was solid, the attitude wasn't.

In addition, Dr. Grisez also explained that it is quite possible that overwhelming popular support for contraception influenced theologians into thinking along the lines: "if a majority of Catholics are contracepting anyway, it can't be that wrong... ."  This popularism is a fruit of the Council: I have even been told by a priest that a pope can teach definitively on a matter of faith or morals as Pope, and still be wrong if most of the people don't believe it.  While the whole sensus fidelium thing can't be ignored, the interpretation held by the priest in question wasn't concerned with historical assent to a particular belief.  Rather, this priest was influence by the idea that Truth was determined by democracy.

Dr. Mirus will not allow the Sacred Council to be the cause of the Church's maladies...and in part, he's right.  The downfalls of the Council are the result of at least a decade of diminished education and formation prior to the Council.  HOWEVER, the detrimental effects of the changing of the Mass, the implementation of the Council's call for ecumenism and the like can't be ignored either.