Truth and Errors on Truth

^37 Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice.” ^38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”

There is a certain group of people who deny we can know any objective truths.  They claim all knowledge is subjective in relation to us.  Then they take the religious believer to task for being "illogical, when they say truth is objective."

There is a certain irony to such a claim of course: The use of logic requires the existence of objective truth.  If [A] = [B] is true, and [B] = [C] is true, then it follows that [C] = [A] is also true.   However, if we deny that we can know that [A] = [B] and [B] = [C], then we cannot logically establish that [C] = [A].  Why?  Because if we cannot know that [A] = [B] is true, then we have nothing to use as a basis to discover the relation between [A], [B] and [C].

By denying one can know objective truth, the person making the claim is in fact denying the use of logic and reason.

What IS Truth

The best definition of truth comes from Aristotle.  To say of a thing that is, that it is, or to say of something that is not, that it is not, speaks the truth.  To say of a thing that is, that it is not, or to say of a thing that it is not, that it is, does not speak the truth.

In the quest for truth, it is in fact speaking of the reality of what is and rejecting what is not.

Now if something IS, then what it is cannot be said to be true only in relation to something else.  If a dog is a canine, it is always a canine, even if someone does not know that fact.

"All Truth is Subjective" Is A Paradoxical Statement

One of the unfortunate modern assumptions is that all truth is subjective.  The irony is this statement is in itself an objective statement, and if it is true, it must be false.  Why? 

We can demonstrate this as follows:

Statement: All truth is subjective

Now, is this true for all people or in all conditions?  If it is, this means it is objectively true, and the statement is contradiction, because if something is objectively true, it cannot be subjectively true.

However, for it to be subjectively true, it means that it is true in relation to some conditions, but not to others.  However, this means that the term "All" is false.

It's like saying "This statement is a lie."  is this statement true or false?  If this statement is true, it cannot be a lie, but the statement says it is a lie.

See what a mess it becomes when a belief contradicts itself?

The only way one could salvage the idea is to change it to "Some Truth is Subjective."  The problem is, to say "Some truth is subjective" means some truth is not subjective, but objective.

Truth: Subjective and Objective

Objective and Subjective are words which can be equivocations because each one has different meanings.  So to be precise, we should look at these different meanings.

Objective can be commonly understood to mean either

1. not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
2. not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.

Subjective can be commonly understood to mean either

1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
2. dependent on the mind for existence.

In both cases, definition #1 is often used.  However in terms of logic, it is definition #2 which is properly used and this is how these terms are understood by the Church.

Unfortunately Objective is often misunderstood to mean "known by all" or "believed by all."  However, even if 100% of a population believes a lie, it is still a lie.  Nor does it mean "publicly known."  If [hypothetically] only I know where a million dollars is hidden, the location of where it is hidden is true even if I should meet with an unfortunate accident and die before revealing this information.

In terms of logic, Objective and Subjective demonstrate two different states.  Something is objectively true when it is true always and exists independently of the mind or experience.  It is subjectively true when it depends entirely on experience to be known.

"I itch" is a subjective truth.  The itch does not exist independently of the individual suffering from it.

"I ought to follow my conscience whether I want to or not" is an objective truth, because it is true whether people believe it or reject it.

Can We Know Objective Truth?

This is the next topic.  Some people claim "OK, so objective truth can exist.  But we can't know truth objectively, only subjectively.  Therefore what we know is only subjective truth."  This was brought to the foreground by Immanuel Kant, who called the concept "the Copernican Revolution in philosophy."  He argued we could not know "things in themselves" but only know things as they relate to the mind.

The problem is this is again contradictory.  If objective truth can exist but we can only know truth subjectively is true, it is in itself an objective truth, not a subjective truth.  If we know we can only know things in relation to the mind, you have an endless paradox.

There is a half truth in this.  It is true that we do use our senses to see some things (eyes for sight, ears for hearing and so on), but these things we sense are objective to begin with.  It has to be received by the senses before it can be evaluated by the senses.  If I read that the Statue of Liberty is 151 feet tall, it is not subjectively 151 feet tall on account of the fact that I learned this from using my eyes to read.  The truth of its height was objective, not subject to my knowing it.

An Exercise to Consider

Let us consider something.  The idea that "We ought to always follow our conscience and never act against it."  Let's set aside (for now) what individual religions understand our duties to be.  Even defined in a secular manner, conscience can be taken to mean "a person’s moral sense of right and wrong." Is this idea Objective or Subjective?

• Is this something which is true only for me? [Subjective]  Or are others required to do this as well? [Objective]
• Is it possible that tomorrow it would be acceptable act in a way against my conscience [Subjective] OR Is this something which is always true for me? [Objective]?
• Is it true only if I believe this? [Subjective]  Or is it something which is true even if I claim not to know it or refuse to follow it? [Objective]

If we claim we can only know truth subjectively (whether we claim truth is only subjective or whether we claim that even if objective truth exists, we cannot know it objectively), we cannot claim to know that a person who does not follow their conscience is wrong in doing so.

This may seem too abstract, so let's make it more concrete.  Consider the evils of Nazi Germany, where the state has called for some quite horrific acts.  A young soldier has to consider whether to obey what the state says and participate in the extermination of Jews or whether to defy the state and follow his conscience, even if it means he will suffer for it.  Others around him are following the state.  Let us consider the following:

1. Is the conscience of the young soldier objective or subjective which tells him to defy the state?
2. Are the soldiers around him who are following the state doing something which is good for them?

If truth is subjective, how can the young soldier know he is right to disobey an order to kill Jews?  After all, if his conscience tells him this, but others tell him his conscience is unimportant and truth is subjective, then it means that we cannot know absolutely it is wrong to take part in genocide.  In such a view we can say we think it is wrong to do this, but we cannot say objectively "This is Wrong!"  After all, you might think it is wrong, but if truth is only subjective or if truth can only be known subjectively, then we cannot say that the Nazis were wrong… only that we think they were wrong.

Only if truth is objective, we can appeal to it when confronting an evil.  If we say racism or sexism is wrong, for example, then either we mean "I don't like it" [which is what subjectivism can tell us] or else we mean "This is something which is always to be condemned and never tolerated" [Which is what objectivism tells us].

What It All Means

The denial of objective truth is one of those things which is commonly cited as a means to deny the Christian truth, especially in the area of morality, as binding.  If objective truth is binding, and is something which places obligations on us, we either must follow it or be hypocritical.  However, because so many things which contradict the truth are popular, it is easier to tell us that what Christianity teaches is "subjective," an "opinion" and so on.

The equivocation of meaning is then introduced.  "Depending on the mind" is replaced with "formed by emotion and opinion."  From this, we get the idea that "truth is subjective" or "truth is relative" and anyone who believes in objective truth is being emotional, but not rational or logical, while the person who denies objective truth is considered rational and logical.

Yet (as we stated in the beginning) if we want to believe in reason and logic, we have to believe in objective truth, because both assume there are things which we can know objectively.  Logic works as follows (using a classic syllogism]:

• All [Men] are [Mortal] (All [A] is part of [B])
• [Socrates] is a [Man] ([C] is part of [A])
• Therefore [Socrates] is [Mortal] (Therefore [C] is part of [B])

If the major and minor premise are true, we can see the conclusion is true

However If the premises are not objectively true, we get:

• It seems that All [Men] might be [Mortal], but we can't know that for certain
• [Socrates] could be [a man], but since we can't know this objectively, this might be wrong.
• Therefore, it isn't impossible that [Socrates] is [Mortal] unless we're wrong about [A] and [B].

If the premises are not clear, we cannot get to a clear conclusion.  If we don't know the premises are true, we cannot know if the conclusion is true

The first example is logical and rational.  The second example is neither.  The first example is logical and rational.  The second example is neither.  The first example is Objective.  The second is Subjective.

The Fallacy of Equivocation

"Nothing is better than a precious diamond.  A cheap rhinestone is better than nothing.  Therefore a cheap rhinestone is better than a precious diamond"

— Classic example of the Equivocation fallacy

 

One of the problems which can be most frustrating when debating is when people use the same word with different meanings, or else a person describing an argument uses the same word in different contexts.

Words need to stay consistent in meaning if we are to communicate what we mean.  Sometimes we make errors.  At other times, the person seeks to use a word deceptively, quoting out of context or otherwise leading a person to think a misapplied word.

In the example above, the equivocation is the word "nothing."  The word can have multiple meanings.

The first sentence in our example above uses "nothing" in the sense of "The diamond is the best thing to have."  The second sentence uses it in the sense  of "having a rhinestone is better than not having anything."  The conclusion, with this equivocation of meaning, is nonsense.

The way around it is to ask "how do you mean "nothing?"  Or for that matter, ask for clarification on any term.

Applications in Misunderstanding

Generally, equivocations through misunderstanding come from each person assuming their own interpretation is the other one used.  This is why so much of the Socratic dialogues are spent in defining terms.  Both parties can misunderstand the other through good will

There are many instances where words used in Christian teaching are used in ways which can be misinterpreted.  A friend of mine has said that the Church needs to use words which are simple to understand for the laity, and not use words which can be misinterpreted.  I think he is correct when he means the theologians of the Church need to avoid jargon.  Of course some complex ideas can be put into a word, and one has to understand the word to avoid oversimplification.

The question is of course whether the Church makes clear what it means.  Defining terms is always an important part in a logical discussion.  Of course, if the Church does make clear what it means, then the blame for the equivocation falls on the person who assumes a different meaning of a term.

Some Examples of Misunderstanding

Take the term "myth."  Some I know are scandalized that there are theologians who refer to Genesis 1-11 as "myth."  Properly understood, "myth" is derived from the Greek "mythos" meaning "sacred story."  However there is a secondary meaning which is "a widely held but false belief."  If a theologian speaks of Genesis 1-11 as a myth, is he a modernist?  Or is the reader misunderstanding him?

Certainly there are theologians who use the word "myth" in the negative sense and some who use it in the positive sense.  So if we hear a theologian use the term "myth," we need to be aware of how he understands it.

The thing is, Genesis 1-11 is not to be understood as an eyewitness account (there were certainly no eyewitnesses to the creation story) but it does not follow from this that the accounts are false.  It can also mean the accounts are true, but are not eyewitnessed accounts (in contrast, the gospels are the testimony of actual witnesses).  In this sense, it is not wrong to use the term "myth."  However, if one uses the term "myth" to understand the Creation story as having no more authority than Greek tales of their gods, then this would indeed be a false and heretical understanding.

Of course, it is this sort of misunderstanding that would cause me to avoid the term "myth" altogether.  It is a loaded word, and unless everyone is clear on the meaning intended beforehand, it cannot avoid acrimonious debate over a misunderstood term.

Another example is the issue over "evolution."  Is a Christian who believes in the role of God but accepts the idea of evolution a heretic?  Or is the concern over certain Darwinian concepts which he claimed as an idea on how evolution worked? ("natural selection" and the like)  One can accept the idea of God making use of natural means to create the universe without endorsing things such as "chance" or uncontrolled events which God has no control over).

Again, the problem can be cleared up by being sure both parties have the same thing in mind when they debate "Evolution."

In both the "myth" and the "evolution" example, the obligation is to ask "how do you understand the term 'myth'?"  "How do you understand the term 'evolution'?"

Because if we don't have a mutual understanding we can agree on, we cannot communicate our ideas.

Applications in Distortion

The above terms can be confused in good faith.  However others can be deliberately twisted, or else a distorted view is accepted based on one's hostility towards the other side, where one assumes a malicious intent for the group they oppose. 

Some Examples of Distortion

I recall reading the work Why Atheism? by George H. Smith where the author sought to undermine the idea of faith.  He defines it as being entirely apart from reason and concludes that the ignorant person has more "faith" than the person who studies their religious beliefs.  He uses this as a starting point to attack the Christian beliefs as emotional and irrational.

The problem was the author chose to use the word "faith" with an entirely different meaning than the Christian writers he cited (such as Thomas Aquinas).  The result was a straw man argument, with the author attacking something that educated Christians do not believe in the first place.  He interpreted Thomas Aquinas and others by using his own understanding of faith, and not the understanding of Thomas Aquinas.

In doing so, attacking "faith" using a meaning which Christians do not hold to was really a waste of time.  Had he took time to identify the meaning Christians used, he could have saved time and not sought to refute "faith" as he did.  It was an appeal to etymology, which is in this case the fallacy of Irrelevant Authority.  The fact that a word has multiple meanings required Smith to understand an idea by the Christian understanding of a word before challenging the Christian notion of faith.

Another area where a hostile understanding can lead to distortion is the Catholic beliefs on Mary.  The English language is unfortunately much more limited than Greek or Latin, and words in English can have multiple meanings while the Greek and Latin can be much more specific.

Since the Catholic teachings translated into English can seem more ambiguous than the actual Greek or Latin, Catholics have stood accused by some of actually worshipping Mary.  The difference, for the Church is the worship given to God is known as Latreia (literally the state of a hired laborer, also translated as worship in the sense of service to God).  Catholic veneration of the saints is known as dulia, which is honor given to mortals.  Hyperdulia, the devotion to Mary is dulia which recognizes Mary as the highest of the saints… but it does not recognize her as divine.

Unfortunately older works in English use the term "worship."  A modern anti-Catholic might find an old work and conclude "Ah hah!  Catholics worship Mary!"  The problem is, in older works the word "worship" was not as nailed down as it is now.  The Oxford English Dictionary points out that an archaic meaning of "worship" is "honour given in recognition of merit."

In both these cases, who is responsible?  The defendant which is accused of holding a view?  Or the attacker which does not bother to discover what is meant before attacking the argument? 

Truth and Obligation: An example for Modern Times

If one attacks another based on a misunderstanding, whether it is malicious or innocent, the person who fails to understand what the other is saying is responsible for the errors he or she makes in their assumptions.

As an example, I have been asked about whether the Catholic concept of "Social Justice" is in fact a liberal agenda which seeks to hijack Catholicism.

I would say no, it is not.  The Catholic teaching goes back to the Scriptures, and precedes the modern liberal movement (see Rerum novarum as a modern example).  However, I would also say that both the person who distorts the term "Social Justice" as a code word to promote a political agenda and the person who assumes this distortion  is in fact what the teaching authority of the Church holds are both guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.

The questions to consider are: What part of the Church has the authority to speak on Social Justice in a binding way?  Does the Church speak of what it means by social justice?

The answer to the first is: The Pope and the Bishops in communion with him have authority to teach in a binding way.

The answer to the second is yes.  The Catholic Church speaks of Social Justice as:

1928 Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority.

1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:

What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.³⁵

1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.³⁶ If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.

1931 Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that "everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as 'another self,' above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity."³⁷ No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a "neighbor," a brother. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

For the Church, Social Justice is the ensuring that every person has what is theirs by right (in the sense of given them by God).  Of course what the Church considers theirs by right are those things which derive from what they are as a human person, and precedes the authority of the state.  The state must correct injustices of course, but the role of the Church is to distinguish of the legitimate rights from false claims.  Legislation cannot undo certain behaviors, yes, though it can eliminate certain injustices which are caused by the state.  However, when the state violates the dignity of the human person, it is contrary to Social Justice (Which is why individuals who say abortion is only "one" issue, and can be set aside, are in fact wrong).

The individual in this case who seeks to hijack the Church teaching of "Social Justice" in favor of a certain political solution is distorting the Church teaching, while the person who assumes that the individual promoting their own agenda is speaking what the Church teaches about "Social Justice" is also responsible for not making an effort to find out what the Church teaches.

Conclusion

The people who are in a debate need to make sure both sides understand each other to ensure communication.  However, when a group of people speak among themselves about an idea, the person from outside who would attack it is responsible to ensure that he or she understands what the group in question means by the term before denouncing it.

On Probability, AD 1491, and The Relation Between What We Know and What Is

I've on occasion run across an atheist who has argued that, while yes there is no proof that there is no God, it is the "more likely" conclusion that God does not exist.

The argument is an interesting one, but the problem is, it is based on assuming what we do not know in relation to what is.  If we assume we know 95% of everything that is, then there is a danger of assuming that the 5% we think we don't know is going to be more of the same.

Yet, if we don't know what is in that unknown portion, we have no idea whether what we don't know is 5% or 50% or 99.9% of what is.  Nor do we know what is in that unknown portion.  Perhaps it is the knowledge which will cure AIDS.  On the other hand it could be the knowledge that an AIDS cure is as false as the idea of alchemy.  Some of these things can be known over time.  Other things we probably will never be able to discover.

The Example of Columbus' Errors

Christopher Columbus for example assumed that the distance of Eurasia covered 225 degrees of the globe, leaving only about 135 degrees of the globe to cover.  He calculated the circumference of the Earth to be the equivalent of 22,500 kilometers (13,980 miles) based on what he knew (the estimated length of the Eurasian land mass) and assumed he only had to travel the equivalent of 2300 miles from the Canary Islands to Japan.

However, the size of the ocean between Europe and Asia was in fact about 8.5 times longer than Columbus had estimated (19,600 miles from the Canary Islands to Japan).  The circumference of the globe was about 40,000 km (about 25,000 miles).  So we can see here that Columbus made an error based on assuming that what he knew in relation to what he did not know.  (Columbus' critics actually recognized that with a distance of over 19,000 miles to Japan [using Ptolemy's accurate estimate], no ship of the era could reach Asia from the West without the crew starving to death).  This is an example of an error based on erroneous scientific calculations assuming they were correct.

There was a second error which was something they could not know.  The educated people of the time, even those who accepted the ideas of Ptolemy (who more accurately estimated Eurasia to be about 180 degrees of the globe, not 225 degrees)  believed that it was one massive ocean between Europe and Asia.  What they could not know was there was another landmass between Europe and Asia going west.  This is an example of an error based on assuming that what we do not know will be in keeping with what we do know.

One couldn't prove or hypothesize the existence of the Americas from the knowledge of European sciences.  The Americas existed, even though prior to 1492 there was no reason to believe they did.

Teacups Around Pluto and "I don't believe America exists…"

The people who might deny the existence of another land mass ("A-americanists" to coin a non existing phrase) would have seemed quite reasonable in 1491.  Sure there were some reports of a Viking "Vinland" which was believed to be an island like Greenland, and sure there are some dubious reports of the Chinese reaching it in 1421, but from what Science could know in 1491, anyone claiming the existence of another continent could be greeted with a 15th century equivalent of Jeffery Stingerstein's "Teacup argument," which runs as follows:

"I can no more prove that heaven does not exist than I can prove that there is not a miniature teacup orbiting the planet Pluto, but it does not make it ridiculous for me to say that there is no such teacup in orbit"

and not be seen as unreasonable… in 1491.  However, once it became clear that this landmass was not Asia, but a new continent (Vespucci first argued this in works published in 1504 and it was accepted by 1507), such an argument would be demonstrably false.

How this is Relevant

I am sure some atheists would object at this point saying that the example of Columbus is invalid… after all, America was discovered and verified, but if what the Christians say about God is true, the existence of God cannot be discovered in that way.

This would be to miss the point however.  Based on what was known in 1491, one could theoretically take an atheistic attitude directed towards the existence of another landmass and such an attitude would not be able to be rebutted.  In this hypothetical case, a person who claimed to have knowledge through revelation of this landmass could be ridiculed for his "mindless faith."

Yet the knowledge which one had in 1491 would be inadequate to make the claim that a landmass between Europe and Asia did not exist, or even that it was "most likely" that such a landmass did not exist.  Knowledge in 1507 showed this assumption was false, but even before 1492 this knowledge was false.

Recognizing the Difference Between "IF" and "IS"

Likewise the claim that what we know of science makes it "most likely" that God does not exist is equally foolish.  What we do not know, we cannot make assumptions on.  We can indeed make predictions based on the premise of "if this is true…" or "if my calculations are correct…" but these predictions have to recognize that IF is not the same as IS.  Because if what we think is correct turns out to be false, what we assume will turn out to be false.

Much of what is unknown may possibly be something which logically follows from what we do know.  However, we cannot say that there is no "unknown continent" out there which may show that what we think we know is actually false.  We can only say that, based on science alone, there are certain things which cannot be answered.  [From this admission, one can investigate whether or not one can know things outside of empirical knowledge, but that is outside of the scope of this article].

The Inevitable Objection and the Reply

Some will object here, claiming that we are applying a double standard, that if they cannot disprove the existence of God, neither can we prove it and therefore what I have written applies to Christians too.  The reason this objection is not valid is because Christians do not attempt to prove the existence of God based solely on what we know from science, but the atheist who invokes the "most likely" argument does.

The atheists I have discussed the issue of "more likely" with tend to base their argument solely on science without considering whether the claims of science even permits the assertions they make.  To claim "God does not exist" is to claim knowledge about what Science does not have and cannot prove.  To make the milder claim that it is "more likely" that God does not exist is to make the only slightly less unlikely claim that what we do not know is nothing more than an extension of what we do know.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the argument that God does not exist, or even that it is "more likely" that God does not exist cannot be supported by science.  If we let 'A' be that which we can know scientifically and let 'B' be things which are, and A (is less than) B, one can neither argue rationally that God does not exist nor that it is "more likely" that God does not exist based on science.  This doesn't mean science is useless.  It means we are not to invoke it for things it cannot speak on.

On Hard Cases: Appeals to Pity, Appeals to Fear

One of the attacks against the teachings of the Church involve not the use of reason and logic, but of exploiting emotion.  Generally, the teaching of the Church is given, a sad case is presented as a counterpoint, and the conclusion is that the Church teaching must be bad because of this case.

The problem with these appeals is that they have no bearing on whether what the Church teaches is true and just.  There will always be cases where a person winds up on the wrong side of a law.  However a law can only be changed if two circumstances exist:

1. The law is in itself unjust.
2. The people asked to change the law have the authority to make such a change.

Is a Law Unjust?

Catholics believe God is infinitely just and merciful.  Therefore, if God reveals to us His will, this will is not to be considered unjust.  We may not understand some teachings which are revealed, but this reflects a personal failure, and not evil on the part of God.

Unlike Euthyphro, where Socrates asked whether a thing was good because gods loved it or whether things were loved by gods because they were good (making the gods either arbitrary or less than the good they were bound to), the Christian believes good reflects what is God's nature in itself: An unchanging God does not change morality over time (though under the idea of Divine Accommodation, over time, God may increase our understanding to turn away from some evils).

So for the Christian, if God reveals to us and we trust God is perfect goodness, it follows that we must hold that what God reveals is just and good.

Does the Church have the authority to make a change?

The understanding of the Catholic Church is that certain things, taught by Christ can never be overturned.  Yes we do believe that Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18 indicates the Church is given the authority by Christ to bind and to loose.  However, we also believe that this authority does not give the magisterium the authority to contradict what God has declared.

Thus, you will never see the Church declare fornication is allowed.  You will never see the Church permit remarriage after a divorce, unless the marriage was in fact invalid from the beginning. You will never see the Church permit homosexual "marriages" or female priests.

There are certain practices within the Church which are binding, but not doctrine.  We believe these fall under the authority to bind and to loose.  At times the Church may bind to prevent an abuse or to loose to prevent a misunderstanding.  These things are carried out for the good of the Church, and can be changed.

For example, the Church can tighten or loosen rules on fasting.  The Church can decree that the laity can receive from the chalice or deny the chalice to the laity.  (She has, at different times, ordered one or the other to clarify a point necessary for the people of the times).

The point to consider here is, when the Church does follow the teaching of Christ, she does not have the authority to loose, even if the values of society demand that she does so.

With this in mind, I would like to look at the fallacies of Appeal to Pity and Appeal to Fear, how they are applied against the Church in two issues (abortion and remarriage after divorce) and why we cannot accept it as a valid reasoning to overturn the Church teaching.

The Appeal to Pity

The extreme example of what is wrong with the appeal to pity is the apocryphal case of the person who murders his parents and then appeals to the court for clemency because he is an orphan.  The reason this appeal is fallacious is because the reason the person appeals for pity is on account of the fact he is suffering the consequences for the act of evil.

This often comes into play when the issue of legalized abortion is discussed.  The slogan invoked is the so-called back alley abortion and women dying from them.  The appeal to pity is made: If abortion was legal then, these women wouldn't have died.

There is a problem with this however.  It has no bearing on whether or not abortion should be legal.  If something is illegal for a good reason (like for example, the fetus being a living human person), then the person who makes use of the illegal abortion is suffering the consequences for breaking a just law. 

Now it could be considered just to say that a society which outlaws abortion has the obligation to help women who become pregnant (certainly I believe we need to practice what we preach here) so they did not feel the need to consider a need to perform an illegal act, but even if such a society did not, it does not change the fact that if abortion is killing a human life, it cannot be tolerated, and a person who dies from an illegal abortion is not an innocent victim, but a person who has died because they have sought to break a just law.

Does this seem harsh?  Perhaps it does.  However, given that we believe God has condemned sexuality outside of marriage, and that we believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent human life, it follows that the person who violates the requirement of chastity and then seeks to kill the resulting child has done a great wrong.

St. Jerome described this in the 4th century in his Letter XXII, To Eustochium:

You may see many women widows before wedded, who try to conceal their miserable fall by a lying garb. Unless they are betrayed by swelling wombs or by the crying of their infants, they walk abroad with tripping feet and heads in the air. Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder. Yet it is these who say: “‘Unto the pure all things are pure;’ my conscience is sufficient guide for me. A pure heart is what God looks for.

The example of cases such as rape and incest are also employed, and quite effectively.  The image of a woman forcibly violated and then forced to bear the rapist's child is one which is disturbing to most people.  We do need to remember something here.  The evil done was by the rapist.  Not the unborn child.  So, the principle remains here: Do we have the right to kill an innocent person?  We do not.  It is indeed a terrible trial for the woman to be sure, but we as Catholics must believe that the ends do not justify the means, and we cannot choose an evil means to reach a good end.

Is that hard?  Of course.  Is it a trauma for the woman in question?  Undeniably.  But is it just to kill an innocent life?  Never.  It would be responding to evil with evil.

Finally, there is the case of "what if the child is mentally or physically deformed?"  No person wants their child to be unhealthy.  However, the Church believes that human life is sacred in itself, and not based on the functionality of the person.  So because the child is not in perfect health does not give one leave to take his or her life.

Another appeal to pity is the attack on the Church teaching on divorce and remarriage.  The popular case is to present a woman mistreated by her spouse, claiming that if she remarries she is cast out of a "cold and heartless" Church for the crime of finding love again.  Or, the Church is condemned for keeping such a woman alone for the rest of her life.  This too is an appeal to pity.

The argument often presented takes this form:

1. God is not cruel
2. The Church teaching on divorce is cruel because if forces a wronged spouse to remain alone for the rest of his or her life
3. Therefore the teaching on divorce is not from God.

However, If we understand Christ's teaching on divorce properly, we see He did not sanction divorce and remarriage while both partners remain alive.  Even the so-called Matthew Exception in 5:32 does not sanction remarriage for a spouse whose partner has been sexually unfaithful.

St. John Chrysostom for example has taught (Sermon XVII on Mathew):

And observe Him everywhere addressing His discourse to the man. Thus, “He that putteth away his wife,” saith He, “causeth her to commit adultery, and he that marrieth a woman put away, committeth adultery.” That is, the former, though he take not another wife, by that act alone hath made himself liable to blame, having made the first an adulteress; the latter again is become an adulterer by taking her who is another’s. For tell me not this, “the other hath cast her out;” nay, for when cast out she continues to be the wife of him that expelled her.

The 2nd century text, The Shepherd of Hermas also shows how the early Church understood the teaching of Christ (The Fourth Commandment, Chapter I)  [the "vicious practices" referred to in the text here is speaking of a faithful man with an adulterous wife.  "vicious" is to be understood as "performing vice," and not "brutality"]:

And I said to him, “What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices? ”And he said, “The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery.” And I said to him, “What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband? ”And he said to me, “Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented.

From these examples (and there are many more), we can see that the teaching of the Catholic Church was not arbitrarily decided on, but rather from the beginning this was seen as the faithful application of Christ's teaching.

So the appeal to pity in the case of the person who marries a person in good faith but that person turns out to harm her does not change the fact that the Catholic Church feels bound to the teaching of Christ.  Where the marriage is valid, there can be no remarriage while both partners live.  [This is why the Catholic practice of annulment is an investigation into whether the marriage was invalid.  If it is invalid, there is no marriage.  If it is valid, no authority can break what God has joined.]

In both of these examples, the appeal to pity is seeking to use an example for the overturning of a just teaching.  For those who appeal to mercy, we need to remember that while mercy does indeed require the seeking to help others as much as possible (in opposition to a cold bureaucratic legalism), mercy cannot overturn justice… or it is no longer mercy, but merely false compassion.

The Appeal to Fear

The appeal to Fear often is similar to the scenarios presented in the appeal to pity mentioned above.  However, instead of presenting a hypothetical situation, it appeals to the fear of "what if it happens to you?"  Let's face it.  No woman wants to be sexually assaulted and become pregnant.  No man would want his spouse, or relatives or friends to suffer this either.  Nobody wants their child to be born deformed.  No person wants to have a spouse be unfaithful in a binding marriage.

However, we need to realize that such a (valid) horror of such a thing happening does not make it permissible to set the just law aside.  That would be arbitrariness.  If the unborn child is indeed a human life, then we are not permitted to kill it out of expedience.  If the marriage is valid and binding in the eyes of God, we cannot call "Mulligan" if it turns sour.  If we promise to marry for better or for worse, and it turns out "worse," the marriage still exists even if we must "put our spouse away" to protect ourselves from evil, and so we would not be free to remarry.

Justice, Mercy and the Requirements of Catholic Faith

Such things may seem cruel to those outside the Church who do not accept what we believe, or to those within the Church who either do not understand or else reject the teachings of the Church.  However, if one believes that God has required certain things of us, then we must obey these things and not clamor for the Church to change that which she cannot change.  If we believe that Christ has given the Church the authority to bind and to loose, and protects her from error, then we must accept that when the Church teaches, it acts with an interest in our salvation and not from "insensitivity" or "power" or "control."

If God is perfectly Just and Merciful, it stands to reason that His Justice will not be merciless, yes.  But it also stands to reason that His Mercy will not set aside justice either.

We who are sinners may at times fail to see things as God wills them.  This does not make God, nor the Church who seeks to follow Him, unjust or merciless when hard cases arise.  It does mean at times we are called to unite our sufferings to His, offering up he pain in our lives to Him, trusting He will sustain us, even when life seems impossible.

Ipse Dixit and Illogic

Ipse dixit: an assertion made but not proved

 

One of the interesting things I have noticed about the attacks on Christianity in general are the claims which are made without proof.  Things get repeated over and over, but when the claims are investigated, there is no valid proof for the claim.

Indeed, it appears that often instead of a proof for an unsubstantiated charge, instead an evasion is employed to put the burden on those they disagree with.

I'd like to discuss some of these tactics which commonly appear on the internet debates.

The Double Standard

Christianity of course has proofs for its claims, under the proper understanding of the term (demonstrate by evidence or argument the truth or existence of.)  Not all may accept the arguments in favor of the Christian view of course.  However, when one limits "proof" to scientific evidence, and argues therefore Christianity cannot be proven true, how is one to respond?

The Double Standard is important to remember here.  If one argues that Scientific evidence can't establish the existence of God, therefore it is probable God does not exist, one is justified in applying the same standard to the atheistic claim: Can we establish the claims of atheism to be true by scientific evidence?

I've found in general that the atheist will then be forced to admit that their argument is not based on scientific evidence, but on arguments which they believe demonstrates what they believe.

The problem is twofold:

1. If the claims of Christianity are to be held to scientific evaluation, then so must those of atheism… and we remain at the level of neither claim being established.  Therefore atheism cannot be established as being "true" or "most probable" Ipse dixit.
2. If atheism rests on the claim of arguments of probability and argued propositions, then Christianity must also be evaluated by the same standard.  Can the claims of atheism be established as proven?  If not, then ipse dixit applies again.

The problem is, the double standard in attacking Christianity demands scientific proof to establish the existence of God, but declines to provide such for the truth of atheism.  This is a double standard.

Ipse dixit in this case is the claim that "there is no proof for God, therefore atheism is more probable."  It is claimed, but it is not proven.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

This is a popular fallacy in internet debate.  The general strategy works this way:

1. Debater makes a claim ("God does not exist")
2. Another person questions the claim ("On what basis can you claim this?")
3. Debater insists that questioner prove their point ("Well, then prove God does exist.")

The reason this is not a valid tactic is that the debater in this case is not offering any proofs for the claim (ipse dixit), but is demanding the person questioning it disprove them.

Some of the cheap ways used to shift the burden of proof are:

• "You can't ask someone to prove a negative."  (Answer: If you are so foolish to state a universal negative, that is your problem.  You've still made a claim which needs to be proven.)
• "The person making the greater claim has the burden of proof." (Answer: Really.  So if you argue we need to kill a million people, and I say we need only maim 500,000 people, only you have to prove your point, and not I?)
• "You can't prove what you believe either." (Answer: You made the assertion, so it is the reasons for your claim that are immediately relevant.)

Statements like these abound on the internet to be sure.  The problem is they are used as an evasion of providing proof.  This leads us to the next area of fallacy.

The Red Herring

The Red Herring is the introduction of material which seeks to derail the topic of the debate by introducing a claim and demanding it be dealt with, even though it is not the topic of the debate to begin with.

For example, if we are discussing Stalinist persecution of Christians, and someone chimes in with "What about the inquisition?" the answer is "what relevance does this have to the topic?"  If we are debating the problem with the policy of the Stalinist state, an event which took place 400 years prior is not relevant.  It could be relevant if we were debating whether or not the state had the right to restrict religious freedom in general, but if this was not the topic, the introduction of the new claim is merely a distracting tactic.

Of course not all counter examples are indeed Red Herrings. 

The topic of religious persecution is a popular one on the internet.  It does require paying attention to what is the topic.  If someone is discussing the Spanish Inquisition and I respond with "What about Stalin?" that is indeed a red herring and a tu quoque, because whatever Stalin did has no bearing on whether or not the Inquisition was a thing which should have been done. 

However, if someone says "Religion is the cause of the most death and destruction in history," using the Crusades and the Inquisition as examples, and I counter with the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Stalinist purges, Mao's actions in China and so on as examples of bloodshed done for secular motivations, I am not using either the Red Herring or the tu quoque, as I am responding to the thesis ("Religion is the cause of the most death and destruction in history,") with valid counter claims (secular wars and persecutions) which challenge the accuracy of the thesis.

The person employing the Red Herring is in fact seeking to evade the question of the debate by misdirecting it.  So when we are considering an example, we ought to consider first of all whether it is relevant to the topic at hand.

The tu quoque fallacy

Often used with the Red Herring, the tu quoque seeks to shift the blame or the focus by claiming that the other person is being hypocritical.  It differs from the double standard when it is has no bearing on the discussion.  For example:

Father (To teenage daughter): You shouldn't smoke

Daughter: Why not?  You do!

Whether or not the Father smokes is not relevant to whether or not one should smoke.  For all we know the Father is hopelessly addicted and doesn't want his daughter to go through the same problems he has.  Even if there is a case of hypocrisy, this doesn't change the issue in question of whether or not it is true.  Even if a person in question is hypocritical (a member of the clergy speaking of chastity while keeping a mistress) it does not affect the validity of what he is promoting or denouncing.

You'll often see the Spanish Inquisition invoked on the discussion of religions being persecuted by the secular state for example.  The Spanish Inquisition was indeed a blot on history, and there is no need to defend it (though it is important to refute claims about it which are false). However, the existence of the Inquisition is irrelevant to whether the secular state has authority to restrict religion.

(If you're arguing that the Inquisition is bad then it isn't a counterexample to the claim that state interference with the Church is bad.  It actually says either both are wrong or both are right.  However, one can condemn Stalinist oppression of religion without saying the churchmen involved with the Spanish Inquisition were right).

The tu quoque proves nothing, and is merely a cheap tactic to distract.

The Ad Hominem

The ad hominem can be blatant ("you are a tool," "you are narrow minded," you're a fascist!" and so on) or it can be more subtle, attacking the person because of the position he holds ("David Berlinski must be a fundamentalist because he supports Intelligent Design"  [Berlinski is actually a self-professed "agnostic Jew"]) but the tu quoque essentially ignores the argument and attacks the person making it.

It is popular of course.  Political columnists like Molly Ivans, Maureen Dowd and Ann Coulter have employed it to mock those who disagree with their views (humorous to the person who agrees, annoying to the one who does not).  The problem is, when you recognize the ad hominem in their writings, it still may be funny (again, it depends on your preferences), but it proves exactly nothing.

I find that when people get to the ad hominem attack, even if they may sound impressive or intimidating, have merely demonstrated they have no answer for your argument.  The ad hominem refutes nothing and proves nothing.  It merely demonstrates the person's hostility to a position, and depending on the level of extremity shows the character of the one making the attack.

Conclusion: The Emperor Has No Clothes

When one strips away the logical fallacies like this, the ipse dixit becomes clear.  They are employed as a distraction away from the claim which is made, but not proven.  The claim is made repeatedly, but never proven.  Distractions are made to put those who object on the defensive.  Over time it becomes widely accepted.  Even so, "The emperor has no clothes" and the statement remains unsupported.

As GK Chesterton once said, "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions."  If it is popular to attack fundamentalists, for example, this does not make the attacks on the claims of fundamentalists "right."  If a movement which favors homosexual marriage labels those who oppose as "homophobic" it is still an ipse dixit making a statement without backing it up.

Of course we who are Christians need to be careful not to make use of these errors ourselves against those we debate.  It is emotionally satisfying to apply a sarcastic ad hominem.  It feels satisfying to remind the atheist of Stalin when he goes on a tirade against Christianity.  But, if we apply logical errors to attack others rather than to establish what we believe we are not proving our own point.  Instead we are causing scandal by making it appear that we have no basis for our beliefs.

Unfortunately it is easy to fall into the traps of illogic.  We are not only people of intellect, but also of emotion.  Nobody wants to look foolish.  So we can respond in annoyance, in anger.  We can misunderstand the subject of the argument and fall off track.

However, we need to remember that when we defend Christianity, using errors like these fail to show the truth of what we believe.  We can appear as petty and vindictive as those who use them to attack our faith.  We should remember the wisdom of CS Lewis and his "Apologist's Prayer"

From all my lame defeats and oh! much more
From all the victories that I seem to score;
From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf
At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh;
From all my proofs of Thy divinity
Thou, who wouldst give no other sign, deliver me
Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust instead
Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head.
From all me thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee
O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free.
Lord of the narrow gate and the needle's eye,
Take me from all my trumpery lest I die.

Unquestioned Assumptions

Preliminary Note

It is not my intent to cause an argument over who wronged who and who was more unjust during the 16th and 17th century.  Nor do I believe that the abuses by one group justifies wrong behavior by another group.  Nor does this article intend to speak against the author of the blog I saw the comment in.  Rather, I saw the comment and was reminded that people still believe this to be fact so I thought it should be addressed.

I do deal with some of the negative actions of Protestantism during the 16th and 17th century.  This isn't a case of seeking to cast Protestants in a negative light, but rather to point out that many unquestioned assumptions constantly repeated are in fact false.

Proper dialogue requires the consideration of what happened on both sides.  If a Catholic only looks at the reported evils of the Protestants without verifying them, if a Protestant only looks at the evils of Catholics without verifying them, and neither considers what actually happened, the result is going to be self-righteousness, as well as spreading misinformation.

Introduction

On another blog, I saw a statement made in passing which was clearly not made in malice, but remained offensive nonetheless.  In essence, it referred to the history of Protestantism and its members who died: so people could be free to worship in their own churches and have their own Bible.  This kind of thing does irritate me.  Why?

Essentially, because it is not true yet is repeated as true.

Freedom to worship in their own churches?

From the perspective of history and of theology this is patently false.  Men like Luther had ideas of what "pure" Christianity was supposed to be, and when the Church said he erred, he claimed the whole of the Church was in error.  He was never in danger of persecution, given that he lived in a region which supported him (He appealed to German nationalism which made him popular with German princes who wished to rebel against the Emperor).

Meanwhile Zwingli arose in Switzerland, had ideas of what "pure" Christianity was supposed to be, and when the Church said he erred, he claimed the whole of the Church was in error.  This view did not coincide with Luther's view (Baptism and Eucharist were two areas where they widely diverged).  He attempted to force Catholic cantons in Switzerland to convert by blockade, which resulted in war, and led to his death.  He was no martyr.

The Anabaptists had ideas of what "pure" Christianity was supposed to be, and when the Church said he erred, they claimed the whole of the Church was in error.  This view did not coincide with Luther's or Zwingli's view.  (Notice a trend here?)  They persecuted Catholics and non Anabaptist Protestants in their lands while they were dominant and were persecuted by Zwingli and later by Calvin and the Church of England.

Henry VIII rejected the authority of the Pope when he was denied an annulment.  He declared himself the head of the Church in England and persecuted Catholics who remained loyal to the Pope.  The Church of England would also persecute the Puritans and Anabaptists.

However, none of these groups or men could be said to have fought for the freedom of religion.  Rather they fought for the dominance of their own religion.  In all of these states, Catholics did not have the right to worship in their own churches.  Indeed, in England, they made the attendance at Anglican churches mandatory.  Catholic churches were looted and burnt.  Monasteries were sacked.  Convents were forced open, and the religious thrown out in the streets.  Nuns were even sometimes forced to be married in some cases.

This doesn't mean that Catholics always behaved in an exemplary fashion in response.  It was a period of intense division and hostility.  I've not discussed those issues to avoid distractions and tu quoque recriminations.  Since the claim was made that Protestantism means people were free to worship in their own churches, we need to look at the history which shows this view to be a myth. 

Our own Bible?

The myth is that Luther discovered a Bible hidden away in a storeroom of a Monastery and read it on the sly, discovering Catholicism was wrong.  The truth was less glamorous.  While a Catholic Priest, he was assigned the duties of teaching Scripture at his university (which shows the Bible was not hidden away), and gradually moved away from the Catholic teaching, which seem to have been based on abuses which certain individuals did in regards to indulgences.

He was not the first person to translate the Bible into the vernacular.  There were several versions of the German Bible which existed before Luther was born.

Likewise, the Catholic Church had never forbade the laity to read the Bible, though it did condemn certain translations as being filled with mistranslations and error.  Also, in certain regions, where a heretical interpretation of the Bible was being put forth as authentic (The Cathars in France for example), the laity was forbidden to read their version of the Bible.

We need to remember something here.  It is false to say that prior to the Reformation people were not allowed to read the Bible.  More accurately, prior to the Printing Press, few Bibles were available (they had to be copied by hand, which is how all our sources of the Scripture were passed down to us), and there was little literacy.

The rise of the printing press did lead to wider distribution of books, and to literacy becoming more useful to the common man, and so the Bible was more widely distributed (the first book Gutenberg printed was the Bible).

The second problem I have with the claim that Protestantism was carried out so we might have our own Bible.  The irony is many people who use this claim don't know the origin of the King James Version, also known as the "Authorized Version."  Authorized by whom?  Essentially, this was the Bible which was to be read in the churches, not the Geneva Bible

The Bible which was popular among the early Protestants was not the KJV.  It was not Luther's Bible.  It was the Geneva Bible.  However, those Protestants in England who favored the state control of the Church did not like the Puritan tone the Geneva Bible took.  The KJV was issued largely to counteract the opposition to authority which the Geneva Bible had.

Another interesting fact was that in England, in 1579, a law was made requiring every home to own a Bible.  The KJV succeeded the Bishop's Bible which succeeded the Great Bible, which succeeded Tynsdale's translation which was banned in England in 1530.

Notice a trend here of law mandating what Bible should be read?

Unquestioned Assumptions and Bearing False Witness

There is a certain amount of anti-Catholic propaganda which still circulates, even among those Protestants who are not anti-Catholic themselves.  Whether it is alleged that the Spanish Inquisition had killed 65 million people (Spain at the time had perhaps nine million people), or whether it is alleged that the Bible was locked to keep people from reading them (there were Bible chains yes, but that was to keep people from stealing pages in a time when books were rare) there are many accusations which are false but unquestioned.

Such claims do go against the commandment against bearing false witness.  False Witness is not only deliberate lies.  It also includes the repeating of comments which we assume are true without actually verifying they were true.  If one repeats something which is false, without checking the truth of what one says, one does slander even if one does not intend to.

Unfortunately, both sides have done this.  I've seen anti-Catholic literature on one hand.  On the other hand, I've seen anti-Protestant literature.  Both seem fraught with partial quotes which make context impossible, with works impossible to verify as sources (whether improper citations or out of date material which no longer is extant.  It's one of the reasons I insist on finding an original source if possible to see such statements in context… if they even exist… before reporting it as fact).

What is to Be Done?

Ultimately, charity to our neighbor requires that we investigate a negative claim before we repeat it.  If we wish to bear witness to Christ, it obligates us to be sure our words are true before we repeat them.

Analysis of Cardinal Rigali and the Health Care Bill

Source: CNSNews.com - Top Catholic Cardinal Says 'No Way' Catholic Members of Congress Can Support Senate Health Care Bill That Funds Abortion

I know some people are going to miss the point and accuse Cardinal Rigali of waffling on the issue, so I thought I'd link this article here because of the great clarifications it makes.

Cardinal Rigali was asked if it was mortal or venial sin to vote for a pro-abortion bill.

Rigali replied:

“People have to follow their conscience, but their conscience has to be well-formed,” said Rigali. “And you have to make sure that when it is a question of doing something that has a provision, if it has a provision in it for abortion, then this is absolutely wrong by every standard and not by the standards of the Catholic Church as you see here today.  It’s the standards of Christian, standards of the natural law.

“Everyone is called. Yes, no, any bill, any bill that has abortion in it is in our opinion to be rejected,” Rigali continued. “But keep in mind that health reform as such is a wonderful, wonderful thing. But a bill that includes it, there’s no way in the world that it can be supported and if it comes down to that.  Once again we have the coming down as we examined in other questions. If it comes down to that, then we would urge, urge, a rejection because health reform is necessary, it has to be reformed, and it can’t be killing.”

Some people will claim he is not giving a straight answer on the question, but the truth is, he is giving us the information we need.

1. Conscience must be well formed
2. Abortion is absolutely wrong, and can never be supported
3. Health Care Reform is good
4. However, Health Care Reform which supports abortion can never be supported, and must be rejected.

From this, we can reason:

• A person with a well formed conscience knows abortion can never be supported
• The Senate Bill has abortion support
• Therefore a person with a well formed conscience can never support the Senate abortion bill.

Fr. Sirico, in this article offers an excellent commentary on this, which is well in keeping with the teaching of the Magisterium:

“When you ask if something is a mortal sin or a venial sin, you’re asking a question with regard to the individual act,”

“When we’re talking about the broad morality of the thing, we’re talking about as it exists in natural law,” he said.  Abortion and funding abortion violate the natural law and are gravely immoral. But for a person to commit a mortal sin, Sirico said, three conditions must be met: the act must be gravely wrong, the person must know it is gravely wrong, and the person must deliberately choose to do it.

“So, the reason the cardinal seemed like he wasn’t answering the question directly is because you can’t judge this along every congressperson, because it depends on their individual knowledge and their individual act of free will,” Sirico said.

“And so, it is grave, and if a person knows that it’s grave, and acts upon it freely, they may have committed a mortal sin,” he said.

Of course with the Church giving strong notice of the grave evil of abortion, the claims of not knowing it is gravely wrong is shrinking drastically.  Vatican II has taught, in Gaudium et spes #16:

Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

If one claims to be a Catholic, then it stands to reason that one must follow what the Church teaches with authority.  On the issue of abortion, the Catholic Church is quite clear:

Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator. (Gaudium et spes #27)

and

For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. (Gaudium et spes #51)

A Catholic who would claim invincible ignorance to the teaching of the Church must confess gross ignorance not only to the teaching of the Church, but also gross ignorance to the knowledge of the authority of the magisterium, if they would ignore the teaching of the bishops speaking out on abortion in America.

A Catholic Politician knowing that the Church teaches abortion is gravely evil, and knowing this freely chooses to vote in favor of laws protecting or expanding abortion rights does indeed seem to be guilty of mortal sin.

So Rigali is pointing out that a Catholic who believes abortion is acceptable to vote for does not have a well formed conscience, and if he knows that abortion is condemned as evil and supports it all the same with this full knowledge, they are knowingly cooperating with a grave evil.

That's mortal sin.

So what are we obligated to know, and what is invincible ignorance?

Thomas Aquinas makes this distinction:

Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called invincible, because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know. (ST I-II, Q76, A2)

So, to be invincible ignorance, it would have to be something which a man is unable to know, even through the study which was available to him.  If he could have found out, if he had bothered to look, it is not invincible, but vincible ignorance.

Could a Catholic Pro-abortion politician find out about the grave evil of abortion?  Certainly.  He only needs consult the magisterium.  Is he bound to know it?  He is, if he would be an informed Catholic in relation to his task of making laws.

So by failing to learn what he is bound to learn, the Catholic pro-abortion politician is committing a sin of omission, and by acting in a way contrary to how he is required to act, he is performing a sin of commission.

Now, not knowing (As Fr. Sirico pointed out) just how responsible each politician is for his or her own ignorance, we cannot say definitively who is guilty of mortal sin.  All we can do is to instruct and to remove ignorance, so that those who do not know the truth might choose truth over error.

If the person is instructed, and chooses to remain in their error to do evil, then they will answer to God for it.