How to make loopy and wholly false claims without any argument or analytical basis whatsoever

Email Print

Ok, so here we have Benedict XVI writing on conscience. He writes: “Only the absoluteness of conscience is the complete antithesis to tyranny; only the recognition of its inviolability protects human beings from each other and from themselves; only its rule guarantees freedom.” Further: a ruler who “denies the inviolable space of the conscience” becomes the Beast of Revelation. The “freedom of the conscience…transcends all political systems. For this limitation Jesus went to his death; he bore witness to the limitation of power in his suffering.”

Pretty clear, huh? One might think. Clear and radical. Thrilling even!

Now here is Andrew Sullivan: “Ratzinger’s views on freedom of thought within the church are deeply authoritarian; his views on what conscience is are totalitarian; his conflation of his own views with the Holy Spirit are offensive.”

On what basis does Sullivan say this? I read and read and followed link after link and found nothing. Nothing at all besides ever more evidence of Sullivan’s own hallucinations and hysterias.

11:48 am on May 4, 2005