The answer according to Nicholas D. Kristof writing in today’s New York Times seems to be that Jesus would do whatever comports with Mr.Kristof’s liberal nostrums, regardless of what the Magisterium says.

One of ‘Puter’s few conservative friends from college, and shockingly enough still a practicing Catholic, forwarded Mr. Kristof’s piece to ‘Puter. Being familiar with ‘Puter’s strong defense of the Church to others of their mutual college friends, ‘Puter’s friend asked for his thoughts on the op-ed.

‘Puter’s slightly edited thoughts follow.

First, the Church hierarchy, for better or for worse gets to (a) set Church doctrine and (b) enforce it. I don’t think Kristof disputes this. I think his central thesis is that he does not like the decision; therefore it must be wrong.

Second, anyone who says they know what Jesus would have done in any given situation is full of shit. It’s hubris to say otherwise. You and I have both seen among our nominally Catholic friends this trend: Catholicism is what I say it is, and what I think Jesus would have done. That is substituting your will for God’s will, and it is damaging to one’s soul and to one’s relationship with God.

Third, the nun in this instance was plainly disobedient. The bishop gave her ample opportunity to repent (along with the hospital) and she did not. She chose to walk away from her Church, not the other way around. The bishop did what he had to do to support to the Church and to prevent confusion among the faithful: he declared that she had excommunicated herself. Thus, he removed the contagion and set an object lesson.

This quote is maddening: “One approach focuses upon dogma, sanctity, rules and the punishment of sinners. The other exalts compassion for the needy and mercy for sinners — and, perhaps, above all, inclusiveness.” It is also wrong. The dogmatics, to use his term, recognized that the Magisterium of the Church, developed over 2,000 years of Christianity and drawing on 3,000 years of Judaism prior to that time, should not be lightly disregarded. In my opinion, it is the “compassionate Christianity” side that lacks any sort of grounding in history or in faith.

All of this comes from the incorrect implementation of the Second Vatican Council’s directives. Hippie priests and nuns took it as an opportunity to toss off what they viewed as the fusty shackles of the Catechism and preach a new false Gospel of feel-good Christianity. At least two generations of Catholics now are inappropriately catechized (our generation and our kids’ generation). An entire generation of priests grew up in this libertine setting, making up their own rules and ignoring the tried and true rites, rituals and reverence of the Church that had gone before.

To me, it’s no wonder that a large portion of self-proclaimed Catholics refuse to follow the most basic teachings of the Church. They have never been taught what those teachings are or why they are important. They have never seen the beauty of a Latin Mass. They are unconnected with those that have gone before us. All that said, there is some truth in the compassionate position. But by making a fetish of perceived compassion, they have lost their way.

Sometimes, the most compassionate thing we can do is to say no. Even when it hurts us. Even when others think we are mean for doing so. Doing the right thing in difficult circumstances is Christ in action. Caving in to the demands of post-modernist quasi-Catholic self-professed theologians is not.

And, to quote noted theologian Forrest Gump, that’s all I have to say about that.