"Dictatorship of Relativism"

Rigorously consistent moral relativists (or subjectivists) are hard to find.  Less than rigorously consistent moral relativists are extremely common.  If you doubt the latter proposition, just teach a freshman philosophy class or attend a cocktail party (especially a cocktail party in a university town).

The point that Pope Benedict is trying to communicate, I believe, is that many people, including many influential people, appeal (sometimes only implicitly, but sometimes quite explicitly) to relativism in the face of demanding moral claims. People want to do what they want to do. As the socially liberal movie maker Woody Allen famously said, "the heart wants what the heart wants."  So, when morality gets in the way, many are tempted to say (sincerely enough, even if often inconsistently) that morality lacks any objective basis. "Values" are, they say, "merely subjective or relative." "There is no absolute right and wrong." "What's wrong for you, might be right for me."  So, they say (usually inconsistently with other things they believe or would say under the pressure of questioning), you shouldn't "impose your values on others" or even judge their conduct to me morally wrong ("stop being judgmental!").

Often, spectacularly inconsistently, people appeal to relativism or subjectivism as a putative ground of people's moral rights:  since there really is no "absolute" right and wrong, they say, people have a right to do as they please in matters that do not harm others.  The great liberal moral and political philosopher Joel Feinberg found this error common enough that he felt it necessary sternly to warn his fellow liberals against committing it. "Beware," he said, "or you will be hoist on your own petard."

Of course, not all moral subjectivists or relativists fall easily into self-contradiction.  The world of philosophy, notably including Oxford philosophy, has included very sophisticated subjectivists and relativists---some of them influential indeed.  One of the most powerful and influential defenses of the subjectivist position was written by John Mackie of University College, Oxford.  The title of his famous book says it all:  Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Mackie was the very opposite of a fringe figure---in Oxford or in the world of philosophy generally.  Lots of people share his view.  It was (and remains) mainstream.

My sense, however, is that Pope Benedict is less concerned with the positions and arguments of professional philosophers like John Mackie than he is with a cultural ethos in which many, many people live by (and the media of communication and entertainment frequently promote or valorize) the philosophy of "the heart wants what the heart wants."  Where such an ethos prevails, one who challenges it risks being labeled a reactionary and even a "bigot"---and being treated as such.