Did you post something that he deemed offensive or against the rules? or was it because you disagreed with him on your own forum?

Good! I agree with your graphic wholeheartedly!

I'm sure there are a lot of liberal anti-Bishop Williamson Catholics everywhere. The man has an education that goes beyond what they teach in public schools, and not all of it falls in line with the script kids are taught to recite and believe. When someone comes out and says things that the majority have been taught to swallow without question, sure, lots of people are going to stop and look at that person like they're nuts. Especially if they've never questioned anything they've gotten from their liberal schools and what have you.

I've long had the impression that many people, even among Catholics, have not liked him because he does go outside of the totally accepted script of public education, and frankly, people are not comfortable outside of that script. If the schools were infallible, this would be a good reaction. However it is kind of strange that Catholics would continue having such reactions to people like him and words like some of his, when they know darn well that the public schools are now largely the domain of liberals who will not permit any other world view (or historical, etc...) to be well or fairly spoken of.

St. Thomas Aquinas used Aristotle, I believe, in some degree in his writings. Or at least allowed himself to be influenced by the points about which Aristotle was right. Now Aristotle wasn't Catholic (obviously), and probably believed things that absolutely weren't true, or that were absolutely in error, beyond any question. So according to St. Thomas, you might conclude, that it is safe to follow a man where he is absolutely right, even if not where he is wrong.

Apply that, then, to those who think Bishop Williamson IS wrong about the issues in question. Even if you sincerely hold that he is positively wrong, it would not be (according to common sense, if not the practices of St. Thomas himself), wrong to follow him where he is absolutely right (eg, in faith and morals).

David Berlinski is an agnostic, and is wrong about SOME things. There are things he says that would make a well educated Catholic shake their heads sadly. He is, however, also a very smart man who makes some very excellent points against darwinism, and who is not afraid to go on camera or in print and criticize the whole thing in a very 'in-the-face' manner. Do we throw everything a man says and does out, merely because they're wrong (or we think they are) about SOME things, or because they may not be saints? Or even Catholics?

What's really ridiculous, is that Catholics can react this way about a Bishop who has not offended in faith or morals, or the teaching of those subjects. If his doctrine is sound, and he's trying to live his faith to the best of his ability, it doesn't matter if he thinks the moon is made of green cheese. All that matters to a sensible and honest Catholic, is will he or will he not tell me the truth in faith and morals? Does he or does he not offer the Catholic Faith of all times? Is he a good bishop or a bad bishop (concerning his duties and the fulfillment of them as such)? If the answer is that he is Catholic, teaches the true Faith, and has fulfilled his duties as a bishop well... then I can follow him as a Catholic Bishop, no matter what he thinks about any other topic. As long as he's right on in matters Catholic and eternal, there is no problem with trusting him in those matters, even if he were really and truly wrong on every other subject there is.

Of course, it's even sillier when people condemn him without even doing as much research on the matters in question as he has. If you have no idea what evidence he's basing his ideas on, how can you condemn him? But there again, he said something not widely accepted as truth, therefore it's an almost unconscious, violent reaction to automatically condemn him. It's just not natural to think outside the box anymore, and when people do (right or wrong) it scares the heck out of everybody else. So as David Berlinski's darwinist critics call him a "closet Christian" for daring to think outside the box about darwinism, so Bishop Williamson's can call him an αnтι-ѕємιтє for daring to think outside the box about the h0Ɩ0cαųst. As long as the majority are liberals who will not permit any other viewpoint or evidence to be heard than that they approve of, upon any topic, this kind of thing will remain just business as usual for a lot of people. After all, it takes effort to think, and effort is one of the few dirty words of today.

I was also banned from AngelQueen - very unjustly. It came as such a shock and I was very hurt. An appeal to the moderator fell on deaf ears - his attitude was very unchristianly. When I told my priest why I had been banned, he was very taken aback as to why that anyone would ban me for that reason. The moderator didn't even put the "banned" sign on my profile so people don't even know I have been banned. I believe he didn't put the "banned" sign because he knew he had no reason to ban me and members would be shocked if they found out I had been banned. The moderator made it appear to everyone that I had run away on my own. The other week, I received an automated message to my e-mail saying I had a message from a member to my AQ account- I am getting messages from members because they don't know I have been banned. I can not access the messages, however, because I am unable to log on.

By the way, I was banned over 8 months ago.

Alex, take it as a sign of honor!

I actually think their is a certain type of indivdual that likes the heavy handed nanny state type atmosphere of the place. It is the trad cath board for the pc inclined. People have thin skins nowadays and are to easily offended.

Funny, when I do go there, seldom though it is, I look for Gerard.