I've read some of Ratzinger's papers. Most of them are good examples of the sort of theology I was referring to - take e.g. "The Holy Spirit as Communio - Concerning the Relationship of Pneumatology and Spirituality in Augustine". Works like this chew the theological cud, they're primarily of relevance to other theologians.

If you wish to make specific criticisms of his arguments

What arguments do you have in mind? Ratzinger is a perfect example of a theologian who uses obfuscation to avoid dealing with obvious questions, and to be able to claim to have reached conclusions after having spewed enough verbiage.

Take, for example, the section entitled "The Rationality of Faith" in "Introduction to Christianity". I defy any rational person to read that and tell me that it is, in fact, even attempting to make a rational case. For example:

"Amen [...] expresses the abandonment of oneself to what we can neither make nor need to make, to the ground of the world as meaning, which first of all discloses to me the freedom to make. Yet what happens here is not a blind surrender to the irrational. On the contrary, it is a movement towards the logos, the ratio, toward meaning and so toward truth itself, for in the final analysis the ground on which man takes his stand cannot possibly be anything else but the truth revealing itself.

"Cannot possibly be anything else"? Perhaps Ratzinger should have taken a few more courses in philosophy instead of theology, if he genuinely thinks this remotely approaches a rational case. But the reality is probably that he's just indulging in rhetoric designed to reinforce the beliefs of those who are already indoctrinated.

This is not explanation, it is propaganda. There's a difference.