A hateful little man

A hateful little man
: David Warren leaves the Anglican church for the Catholic, tracking bile along his path:

I realized that our ship was no longer, as it were, sinking, but now, as it were, sunk, when I saw a statement from one of the hierarchy of Episcopal Church USA, “reminding” Anglicans that their authority is not founded on Scripture, but rather on the operation of the Holy Ghost within the communion. This was a doctrine I had already detected, under layers of deceit, in the meandering verbiage of Dr. Rowan Williams, the new, fanatically liberal, Archbishop of Canterbury. It is the characteristic doctrine of utopian revolutionaries and violent heretics from many centuries — this idea that God is speaking to them directly, and that they may now ignore scripture, history, and tradition, and do whatever feels good.

The Anglican Church will probably be at more pains to conceal than to reveal this doctrine in the immediate future, for it is too obviously the work of the devil. Yet the doctrine becomes absolutely necessary, in the moment when a church decides that, for instance, it will ordain as “bishop” some vile man who has left his wife and children to explore sexuality with a younger male.

Mr. Warren, I might recommend a few other denominations, where the members feel priviliged, over God, to decree who among his creation is “evil.” Who, sir, is the “vile man” here? [via Relapsed Catholic]

: Kathy Shaidle of Relapsed Catholic delivers me a lashing, here, for what I wrote above. I’d leave a reply there, but she has no comments, so I will leave it here.

Let me first make clear that I respect and like Kathy; she has been warm and generous not only on her weblog but also in direct contact. I also respect Warren’s intelligence.

But I mean what I said: Warren’s words are hateful — that is, full of hate. His words are bigoted and spiteful. He calls a man of God, a creature and creation of God, a “vile man.” He put himself in the position to judge his fellow man. And why? Because this man, now a bishop of his church, is gay. Warren is leaving his church, the Anglican, because it embraced a gay man as a leader. I left my church, the Presbyterian, because it rejects gay people from leadership. We are both within our rights to hold and state our opinions, both within our rights to act on them, both within our rights to disagree. And, oh, I do disagree. I am appalled at “Christians” judging and rejecting people because of who they are, because of the way God made them.

Kathy goes a step further in her defense of Warren, noting that I survived the attacks on 9/11 and wrote about it with “passion and fury” and then she says:

David Warren has witnessed something similar, something — dare I say it — more important: the attempted destruction of the Church, the City of God, the Body of Christ on earth. He too has written about his pain, his outrage, his anger at the misguided fanatics who are clearly responsible.

Oh, we split there. I certainly do not equate the deaths of 3,000 innocents at the hands of religious fanatics with the ordination of a gay bishop.

In fact, I’d say that Warren, who has written wisely on Islam and 9/11, fails to recognize that the religious judgmentalism, self-superiority, and, yes, fanaticism that stands behind the attack on America is sadly similar to his attack on his church. The terrorists attacked us because we are not Muslim and we are American. He attacks a bishop of his church because he is gay. The difference is that he is not armed. Both judgments are ruled by bigotry and hate.

I will pass by the other attempted insults — “Boomer Liberal Pieties … misguided fanatics … liberal, non-judgemental Church of urbane sophisticates” as words spurted in the heat of the moment. I will suggest that we dial down the heat.

But I remain shocked at the strong and spiteful language from Warren, who had the time (and editors) to consider his words. I suggest that he is the one who should reconsider.