Dear Michael S., [UPDATED]

You could scarcely be more anti-relativist than I am.  (Or, I suspect, than Les Green is.  But Les can speak for himself.)  As you might have understood if you had taken the time to look at the chapter I cited, in response to *your* query about *my* thinking.  I am at the University of San Diego during fall semesters, teaching a course on international human rights both to law students and to master's students in peace studies, in part precisely because I am a thoroughgoing anti-relativist.  One can be a thoroughgoing anti-relativist and nonetheless conclude that Cardinal Ratzinger's talk about "a dictatorship of relativism" is, at best--at best--confused and unproductive talk about a complicated matter.  For example:  There is nothing even slightly relativist about the argument that it is a human rights violation to refuse to extend the benefit of law to same-sex couples.

And by the way, I did not suggest--and neither did Les, as I read him--that the Pope is "attempting to confuse".  One can be confused, and be confusing, without attempting to confuse.

By contrast, as I read your post, you *are* suggesting that Les and I are attempting to confuse.  I suspect that you don't really mean that.  At least, I hope you don't.  But your saying as much is insulting.

[UPDATE:  I notice the accusatory "attempting to confuse" language has been changed to a non-accusatory "causing confusion".  As I said, I suspected--and hoped--that Michael S. didn't really mean what he originally said.]

Michael P.