And Ratzinger has been proven WRONG over and over again---because his interpretation of Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis humanae 3 "In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life."  


People are not guilty of sin---if they do not know the moral law [as defined by Judeo-Christian teachings].  Ratzinger, construes conscience largely in terms of conservation, the past, memory---but no in terms of conscience as a place of encounter with what is new.  He does not distinguish between primary and secondary precepts of the moral law no does he delve into the complexity of identifying the moral law in markedly different cultural contexts.  Ratzinger, who was better in dealing with airy objectivity, rather than with REAL people sees folks as being guilty of sin---when they are ignorant of moral law.

He and people like him are too quick to condemn people of committing sin---where God would not.