First Step: Defend the Church against a bizarre straw man argument that no one has ever made --

Example:  "Those are mistaken who would say that Christ only enters the Blessed Sacrament due to the presence of spectators, as if the Mass were a circus act, and Christ a performer."

Second Step: Say something that is true and basic, to give people hope that you will start making sense.

Example: "Nevertheless we do participate in this event, which is not confined to one particular location but takes place throughout the world."

Third Step: Move to a conclusion or zinger that smacks of heresy or is conducive to heresy.

Example: "This Mass, then, is something that is of benefit to all, both those who are present and those who are not, our separated brethren."  

Put it all together, and here you have a classic Ratzian paragraph, with all its maddening, tortuous anti-logic.  There's a clear method to the madness.

"Those are mistaken who would say that Christ only enters the Blessed Sacrament due to the presence of spectators, as if the Mass were a circus act, and Christ a performer.  Nevertheless we do participate in this event, which is not confined to one particular location but takes place throughout the world.  This Mass, then, is something that is of benefit to all, both those who are present and those who are not, our separated brethren."  

Voila!  Just follow this formula, and you too can be a master of non-rhetoric like Ratzi.  It's Do-It-Yourself Ratzi!

Pius XII also has his own style, except where Ratzinger can contradict himself within one sentence, Pius XII, like a Jekyll and Hyde, tends to split his speeches, allocutions and whatnot in half.  They start out conservative and then suddenly shift into liberal views halfway through.