This post was originally published on this site

This morning’s Gospel reading is Luke 18:9–14:

Jesus addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else. “Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity — greedy, dishonest, adulterous — or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’ But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’ I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

A friend of mine reached out to me last week and asked about the Catholic perspective on the need for confession through a priest. I offered the biblical foundation for it (John 20:21-3), and she thanked me for it, but we haven’t circled back for a longer discussion. Although today’s Gospel doesn’t touch directly on her respectful and authentic query, it does offer at least light on the need for formal repentance and atonement, and the church’s role in mediating it. 

In this Gospel reading today, we have two men come to the temple to worship the Lord. One comes in righteousness, while the other in abject misery at his own poverty of spirit. In Jesus’ parable, He intends to teach that poverty of spirit as a model for true worship — and for the need to confess it honestly. But there is a deeper lesson here in terms of coming to grips with our own identities and the nature of sin, and why that matters in worship of the Lord.

Let’s start with the Pharisee, a station of high respect at the time in temple culture. He offers what might be considered praise, but who is the Pharisee praising? He is thanking the Lord for blessing him, which would normally be considered a righteous act. We should always praise the Lord for our blessings, thanking him for His love and protection. However, the Pharisee isn’t truly praising the Lord; he is praising himself, and essentially judging himself worthy by comparison to others. The Pharisee assumes in his prayer that the Lord grades on a curve, and judges based on the values of men rather than His own. 

Jesus then offers the prayer of the tax collector, the lowest of all stations in temple society. In later eras, we would call these men collaborators, and in the specific case of Roman tax collection policies, thieves. They robbed their own people to enrich their occupiers, the same people who oppressed them and kept them from full worship and freedom. The Judeans had become a subjugated people to pagans, and the tax collectors greased the wheels of the systems that victimized their people. 

The tax collector offers nearly the exact opposite of the Pharisee’s approach to the temple. Instead of arrogance, the tax collector comes in abject misery about his relationship with the Lord. He was so ashamed of his status as a sinner that he could not even lift up his eyes while approaching. Rather than offer excuses or justifications by comparing himself to those worse around him, the tax collector admitted his sinfulness in honest sorrow, and asked for mercy.

Jesus cleverly crafts this parable through the use of these extremes. His disciples may not have been fond of Pharisees, but the tax collectors would earn a special revulsion, perhaps much worse than Jesus’ similar use of the Samaritan in his parable about the nature of “neighbors.” Jesus then tells the disciples that it’s the tax collector and not the Pharisee who left the temple cleansed of sin.

But why? The main point is the Pharisee’s arrogance blinds him to his own sinfulness. The tax collector’s humility allows him to fully understand his relationship to the Lord. The Pharisee came to the temple to praise himself; the tax collector came to humble himself. Which of these actually worshiped the Father as Lord? Which man put himself in the proper relationship with God while in the temple? This is not a parable about personality types; it is a lesson in grasping that no one is worthy to come to the temple and praise himself, and that all must account of their sins. The Lord does not grade on the curve, in other words.  

However, there is another aspect to this as well, which brings us back to my friend’s sincere question. What Jesus offers in this parable is not just the model for atonement at the temple, but also the model for forgiveness of sins. Let’s recall John 20:21-3:

²¹ Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” ²² And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. ²³ If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Before Christ, the Jews came to the temple to offer sacrifices in atonement for sins. After the Resurrection, Christ transformed the path of salvation in establishing a missionary church that would replace the fixed temple, making “disciples of all nations” through the evangelization of the Gospel that promised the forgiveness of sin through Himself. He passed that authority to the episcopate of His church through the Holy Spirit so that repentance, atonement, and forgiveness would be facilitated wherever the church was established.

In today’s parable, Jesus offers a model for that process. Two men come to the church, one of whom refuses to acknowledge his own sinfulness and leaves unjustified. The other comes, beating his breast in shame and repentance, bringing his sin to the temple/church in full and asking for mercy. It is the latter who leaves reconciled, because he came to the temple/church to formally offer his repentance and atonement, and who receives mercy through that overt act. 

Why would it take the overt act, though? We also receive the Holy Spirit when we are baptized and confirmed into the church, and we are also told that we are all called to be “priests, prophets, and kings” in a sense regardless of ordination. However, that status is what we gain through surrendering our lives to Christ and allowing Him to live through us. In John 20, Jesus specifically ordains the apostles to exercise His specific authority to forgive sin through the church. 

And why is that? Because we are not resistant enough to sin on our own to exercise self-judgment. Jesus uses the Pharisee in this parable to make that point. The Pharisee is a learned man in the scriptures, devoting himself to the temple and the Law. Yet that authority has gone to his head; as a member of the temple authority, he has lost any ability to maintain a healthy perspective on his own sinfulness and arrogance. He is the example of the dangers of “self-forgiveness,” so to speak. We lose sight of sin without accountability, and then become inclined to let ourselves off the hook for it by grading ourselves on a curve. By doing so, we commit the sin of judging others. Even priests and bishops have to go to confession; the Pope has his own confessors for that reason as well. 

Jesus leaves us the Church for our own ability to repent, atone, and be forgiven. The Church is the path to salvation for that forgiveness and reconciliation, and exists to remind us that sin is not left to our judgment but to the Lord’s. There is no curve on which to grade; we all sin and fall short of His Glory, and the only way to reconcile that is through true repentance and atonement.  

Previous reflections on these readings:

The front page image is “Feast of Simon the Pharisee” by Peter Paul Rubens, c. 1620. On display at the Hermitage Museum. Via Wikimedia Commons. 

“Sunday Reflection” is a regular feature that looks at the specific readings used in today’s Mass in Catholic parishes around the world. The reflection represents only my own point of view, intended to help prepare myself for the Lord’s day and perhaps spark a meaningful discussion. Previous Sunday Reflections from the main page can be found here.  

Join Hot Air VIP, VIP Gold, or VIP Platinum, and use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your membership!

This post was originally published on this site

Months ago, Jeff Bezos made clear that he wanted to clean out the most insane Opinion Page columnists and restore some sanity to the Washington Post’s Opinion/Editorial Page. 

And there was quite the exodus as the Augean Stables were cleaned out. David Shipley,  the editorial page editor, resigned. Ruth Marcus, out. Karen Attiah, out. Philip Bump, out. Jonathan Capehart, out. We all laughed and toasted Jen Rubin’s departure, of course. 

But even with the massive turnover in personnel, how many of us expected the  Post to do more than make a nod to sanity as it continued on much the same course?

Yet, here we are. Hell has, indeed, frozen over. 

Washington Post lead editorial in Sunday’s newspaper is a defense of the White House ballroom. https://t.co/1Xm0g85Dp4

— James Hohmann (@jameshohmann) October 25, 2025

Now, it would be no surprise to find an opinion piece by a moderate or conservative defending the ballroom addition, even if the Editorial Board were the same as before. Publishing an occasional piece by a Republican to present the image of balance is standard practice. 

But this piece is an Editorial, presented as the official position of the Editors. And it is a slap in the face to liberals, both by endorsing the ballroom itself and by slamming how hard it is to do anything in America anymore. 

The teardown of the White House’s East Wing this week is a Rorschach test. Many see the rubble as a metaphor for President Donald Trump’s reckless disregard of norms and the rule of law, a reflection of his willingness to bulldoze history and a temple to a second Gilded Age, paid for by corporate donors. Others see what they love about Trump: A lifelong builder boldly pursuing a grand vision, a change agent unafraid to decisively take on the status quo and a developer slashing through red tape that would stymie any normal politician.

In classic Trump fashion, the president is pursuing a reasonable idea in the most jarring manner possible. Privately, many alumni of the Biden and Obama White Houses acknowledge the long-overdue need for an event space like what Trump is creating. It is absurd that tents need to be erected on the South Lawn for state dinners, and VIPs are forced to use porta-potties.

Everybody who is not Trump-deranged knows that if any other president had done the same thing, the reaction would be entirely different. The issue is Trump, not the ballroom. Nobody has any special feelings about the East Wing–it’s likely that many people who are blowing their tops didn’t even know that it existed. They probably thought the East Wing was just the eastern half of the Executive Mansion, which is really a different building entirely. 

Though the fundraising for the ballroom creates problematic conflicts of interest, two examples validate Trump’s aggressive approach. After a fence jumper got inside the White House in 2014, it was obvious that better perimeter fencing needed to be installed. But doing so involved five public meetings of the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) over two years, as members took pains to ensure the fencing complied with environmental rules. Construction didn’t begin until July 2019.

Or consider the modest Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial near the National Air and Space Museum. Congress authorized its creation in 1999. Architect Frank Gehry was selected in 2009. The NCPC rejected Gehry’s initial design proposal in 2014 before approving a revised plan the next year. The Commission of Fine Arts gave its approval in 2017. The memorial wasn’t opened until late 2020. By contrast, Eisenhower planned and executed D-Day in about six months.

Twenty years to build a memorial. Government at its best. 

This is a one-two punch of an editorial, not because it will move the needle in any significant way or because the Post is suddenly going to become a Trump outlet. The ballroom issue is, in itself, minor. It is a manufactured controversy. 

What the editorial does is calmly point out that 1) Trump is right in what he is doing, and 2) that he is having to “subvert norms” because the norms are insane and destructive. 

Something needed to be done. The existing “norms” (not rules, because the White House is mostly exempt) and red tape make doing anything nearly impossible, so Trump cut the Gordian Knot. He saw a need and filled it. 

This is about normalizing Trump again, which would be devastating to the left’s strategy if the strategy works. A huge fraction of the difficulty Trump faces is having to deal with manufactured hysteria, and if enough “mainstream” outlets decide to opt out of creating the hysteria, it will defang the left. 

If, instead of echoing the “Trump is Hitler” nonsense, newspapers compare him to his real spirit-politician, Teddy Roosevelt, the narrative would shift. It’s not that liberals would get on board, but many others who are upset at the upset itself might give Trump more breathing room. 

The reaction to the editorial is exactly what you would expect:

Nobody is interested in the actual argument; it’s thousands of hysterical comments. 

One editorial won’t change the world, or much at all. But the opposition to Trump is driven by the hysterical tone, and if the hysterical tone shifts to something more neutral, that could have an effect in the longer run. 

Still, The New York Times is the big prize in the newspaper biz, and it is unlikely to shift much any time soon. 

But, perhaps, The Washington Post is a canary in the coal mine. CBS now has Bari Weiss. The Washington Post agreed with Donald Trump. 

Hell may indeed be freezing over. 

Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.

Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.

This post was originally published on this site

        If Zohran Mamdani is elected mayor and implements the changes he is promising, expect the city’s financial condition and public safety to deteriorate rapidly. Think criminal bedlam, antisemitic rioters allowed full rein, and cutbacks to basic city services.

        In such a crisis, desperate New Yorkers will look to Albany, where the governor has virtually unlimited power to curb the mayor’s authority or remove him, even if no crime has been committed.

        There is a safety valve, if a governor is willing to use it.

        Before removing a mayor, state law requires the governor to present grievances against the mayor at a formal hearing. Even so, the governor’s decision is final, not subject to review by any court. The New York Supreme Court calls it “the naked power of removal.”

        In the event a mayor is removed, the public advocate acts as mayor until a special election is held within 80 days.

        The question is: Would Gov. Kathy Hochul have the guts to use her authority to protect the city, or would she sacrifice the city by pandering to the socialist flank of her party? Expect this to be a major issue in the 2026 gubernatorial election, when a Republican contender is likely to insist on an answer.

        Right now, Gov. Kathy is cozying up to Mamdani, praising him as “eminently reasonable” and hinting she’ll find $10 billion in the state budget to fund his long list of promised freebies, including child care and bus rides. That’s happy talk. The state faces a $10-billion-a-year deficit.

        Mamdani has promised to close Rikers Island. Thousands of violent inmates will be on the streets. Meanwhile, cops will be quitting in droves, according to former New York City Police Department Commissioners Bill Bratton and Ray Kelly.

        While crime spikes, fiscal mismanagement will force the city to curtail essential services like sanitation and what’s left of police protection. Mamdani is promising $6 billion a year in child care and $652 million a year in free bus service. The city is already facing a $17.1 billion deficit during what would be Mamdani’s first three years at City Hall without the added fairytale freebies, according to State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli.

        For half a century, ever since New York City’s financial debacle in 1975, New Yorkers have taken comfort in knowing that a state-run Financial Control Board is in place to prevent the city from overspending and plunging into financial ruin. But the guardrails have turned into tissue paper under the state’s one-party rule.

        Reactivating the Financial Control Board requires the consent of the state legislature. Good luck. The top legislative leaders, all Democrats, have endorsed Mamdani.

        There is no guardrail to prevent the city from going bankrupt or spiraling into criminal chaos except a governor’s constitutional removal power. That power was invoked in 1932, when then-Gov. Franklin Delano Roosevelt called for a hearing to remove New York City’s corrupt Tammany Hall Mayor Jimmy Walker.

        FDR’s effort was challenged in court, and the New York Supreme Court ruled that the governor’s authority is “unlimited.” It is the “naked power of removal.”

        Walker, seeing he was about to be ousted, resigned and fled to Europe.

        Michigan and Florida also empower their governors to remove mayors for negligence or improper governance, not just illegal acts.

        Ousting a democratically elected mayor is serious business, but almost every state has some constitutional mechanism to remove an incompetent or unfit mayor. Some states prefer recall, and others empower the legislature to make the call. As long as removal is followed promptly by another election, voters have the ultimate say.

        The Citizens Union, a New York City nonpartisan good government group, sees the “potential democratic harm of ousting a duly elected official who represents over 8 million people” but concludes that a removal power is essential. The organization proposes an amendment guaranteeing that the mayor has a due process right to be heard and that the hearing occur within seven days. Even so, the final decision would still belong to the governor.

        The Democratic Party in New York has been hijacked by the Democratic Socialists of America, largely with out-of-state money and manpower. Mamdani’s extreme anti-capitalist, anti-cop and antisemitic promises, if implemented, threaten the survival of the city’s economy and the safety of its residents, particularly Jewish New Yorkers.

        The governor’s removal power was created for such rare circumstances. It’s vital that Hochul or her successor has the courage to use it when the need arises.

        Betsy McCaughey is a former Lt. Governor of New York State and Chairman & Founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths at www.hospitalinfection.org. Follow her on Twitter @Betsy_McCaughey. To find out more about Betsy McCaughey and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Editor’s note: We now have the room to run syndicated commentary by some of our favorite and most provocative thinkers on the Right. That only happens because of the support of our readers, who ensure that we have the resources to keep providing an independent platform and independent voices in a sea of Protection Racket Media domination. 

Help us maintain that fight! Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership!