I hesitate to call another human being self-righteous: it seems like presumption itself to think I know what someone else's inner attitude is. So let me limit myself to saying that the piece presents an image of animus and arrogance. The writer rises up and delivers condemnations: the object of his disapproval is "not Christian"; "none of that is Christian"; "an outdated, badly skewed version of Christianity"; "blatantly ignores the teaching of the church", "both devious and probably servant to another agenda".
Not that this guy is in a position to accurately represent the Catholic Church's teaching: he's a liberal Episcopalian clergyman writing a hatchet job about Mel Gibson's Passion movie.
In this guy's world, don't bother pretending there are two points of view. There's only your view. Just bash away.
Don't prove: assume. "Sure, Mel Gibson's film, The Passion, is probably anti-Semitic."
Don't document: use rumor. "Gibson, however, is rumored to be a 'traditionalist' Roman Catholic who repudiates the decisions of the Second Vatican Council held in the 1960s and considers all popes since the council usurpers."
Don't rely on direct evidence: use guesswork. "The movie, as reported by Christian and Jewish scholars who have read the script, turns the theological clock back to the middle ages...."
Rely on your target's critics; don't mention anyone who defends him from the very charges you present. Why, your readers might think there were two sides to the question.
What is a "theological clock"? If it doesn't abide by daylight savings, I might get one for my desk.
"The movie, as reported by Christian and Jewish scholars who have read the script, turns the theological clock back to the middle ages...."
I thought the point of the movie was to turn the theological clock back to first century Jerusalem?