I can only put it in a logical formula called a hypothetical syllogism.
It starts with an if/then statement.
For example, if it is raining outside then I will be wet.
Then we either affirm or deny one of the parts of the proposition.
Let's say that deny the "then" part of the statement (this is called "Denying the Consequent")
So let us put it together:
If it is raining outside, then I will be wet.
I am not wet.
Therefore, it is not raining outside.
The formula for this is:
This is a logically valid hypothetical syllogism. And again, with all syllogisms, if the terms are clear, the premises are true, and the logic is valid, then the conclusion must be true.
There are many parts of the night's debate that should be sifted through this logical filter. But right now I am most interested in a statement saying that the current HHS directive does not infringe on Catholic's rights.
So the syllogism should go like this.
If you were note violating the rights of the Catholic Church, then they would not be suing you.
But the Catholic Church is suing you.
Therefore you are violating the rights of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church is under assault.
I am reminded of the words of Albus Dumbledore, "Soon we will must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy."