www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall CENSORSHIP of Very Rev Father Tom Loya by his Bishop

Yes, nuance to convey meaning. What's wrong with that? That they have the gall and temerity to use words to inform.

Why? Vote the platform not the personality. It shouldn't be a surprise if Trump is preferred by them because of the platforms. I brought this to your attention in another thread responding to your post there. Take a look at the comparison of the candidates. Here's the link. Read the Catholic Voters Guide on Parma's website [parma.org]. What's the conclusion?

Name-calling and innuendo here filling in for relevant, documented facts. It's, take the splinter and makes it to be the beam.

So what's your solution and why? What's the present position of the parties on stem cell research and the abortion industry that supports it. Compare Trump-Republican versus Biden-Democrat on stem cell research. How do the positions comply with the Catholic Voters Guide [parma.org]? I challenge you to post your comparison as a service to this forum.

I don't know why President Trump didn't use hydroxycloroquine, but I have an idea. I heard the name "Pfizer" thrown around this afternoon as President Trump was speaking with Rush Limbaugh on Rush's program. If Pfizer has a connection to the new experimental drugs which cured President Trump, they stand to make an obscene amount of money from it.

As for the silly.....I did say before the post it was just a random idea that went through my mind. Silly, but at the same time, you know that China is not exactly our ally, right?

He isn't 'cured' yet so if any drug company is involved, they may make or lose a ton based on his health outcome in the next few months

I have to say that I am puzzled by people that argue pro-life on the issue of abortion but are completely callous to the death toll of a virulent and dangerous disease. What they seem to be preaching, in my opinion, is Darwinism. Let the weak die so I can do what I want. That is exactly the thinking behind abortion.

Please don't crow about the seemingly low death rate. That is the gift of modern medicine. We've seen how fast outbreaks have filled ICUs to capacity. Now, we may have a lower death toll because of their successes. But if those same ER facilities were run at say 125% capacity for a prolonged period, do you think you would have the same results? Likely not. Push then higher, definitely not. As far as those claiming scam. I will listen to the doctors that have been treating this virus and have learned to respect it. I do not think that makes me a heretic or Satanist.

I also do not believe that the Republican Party is really pro-life. They seem to be at best pro birth. And considering their hostility to ensuring health care is provided across society, they are not even that. They really don't care what happens to you. They are perfectly willing to kick the poor to the curb and let people, even children starve to save a few bucks in taxes. Cuts to SNAP payments and Medicaid coverage have adverse health effects on people. I also do not think you are really pro-life if you ignore environmental issues. Those issues are going to lead to an awful lot of death and destruction. It already has.

Maybe you think a monarchy or authoritarian regime would be better if it got you what you wanted. But this is supposed to be a representative democracy. Quit looking for grifters like Trump to advance the cause. If we have abortion, its because Christians haven't properly evangelized or demonstrated the Love of God in their lives. I will once again strongly advise you to look at how people in this nation really vote if given the chance. I direct you to Mississippi's 2011 Personhood Referendum. The people of this overwhelmingly conservative state had the opportunity to vote for a change in law to make the fetus a person. It went down with a 58% no vote. A favorable SCOTUS ruling is not going to change that dynamic.

Please note: the new Regenron's product used on Trump is the product of fetal stem cells. Somehow I do not see the GOP cracking down on that. Not when there is a buck to be made. Nor do I see them depriving their rich buddies of invitro fertilization and the ability to make money from those services.

I just thought that someone should point out other sides of the story and not let this be an electioneering column for a certain party. It is also why I will not vote based on culture war issues. WHEN IT COMES TO THE IMMORALITY THAT PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE WITH THE PROBLEM IS THE PEOPLE, NOT THE POLITICIANS. The latter just reflect the former.

Christ is in our midst!!


Andy:

Maybe it's a bit of semantics, but I don't understand why "health care" is not already available to everyone in this country. Anyone can go to any physician who will take him/her.

It's PAYING for health care that is the problem.

Health insurance was given to people during WW2 as a pay increase when wages were frozen. But the idea that someone else should pay for my health care is one that is relatively new. It seems tome that everyone has the chance to get insurance if they can find an insurance pool that will accept them.

Forgive me, but insurance is based on the idea that a group of people with common characteristics and health issues can band together and help each other with illnesses. This year I need and you don't; next year it's the opposite. The problem comes in when people think that each and every little thing should be paid for by someone else. Now the idea is that the government should shoulder the cost of everyone's each and every little thing. The problem the becomes that no matter how many resources are brought to bear, they are limited. There are already calls for limiting resources for those over a certain age and those with health issues that are chronic that use "too many" resources. I am in the insurance area as well as my primary area of employment and am seeing all these arguments being made in professional journals and ethics discussions. It's chilling to hear Wuhan vaccines should not be given to those over 75 because they have few "productive years" to contribute back to society.

I, for one, am not opposed to some method of providing assistance to those who have trouble paying for health care, but I am opposed to confiscatory taxes to do it and for government agencies which will decide who gets limited resources and who does not. I have studied health policy and have seen the anecdotes about Sweden, for example. It is illegal in Sweden to use one's own money to go outside the health system to obtain medications from abroad if one is denied at home. Then there is the UK. Their universal health system has shortages and rationing. A relative related family in the UK who waited two years for a necessary surgery--fortunately not a cancer surgery. People with money in the UK pay for private insurance and health care so they don't have to wait.

Bob

Saying that healthcare is available if people can pay for something they clearly cannot afford is simply ridiculous. There is no pure free market solution to the problem. Healthcare is completely inelastic in its demand. So, the only "free market" system is one where we only take care of the people we think are worth insuring. Healthcare is no longer a commodity. It has become a utility. So you have to run the market like a utility. That means some sort of regulated market. It also means that some people making a killing are going have to get their haircut a bit. Don't cry for them. They'll still live very well.

Now this might make some sense if our current system was cost effective. It is not. We spend 18% of GDP on health care. The next nearest nation is Switzerland at 13%. That spread in GDP is about $1T per year. And at that we make people bankrupt themselves if they cannot or do not get employer provided insurance. (And that means that your employer picks the policy that is best for HIS/HER bottom line, not yours.) For that we do not even get the best results. There are any number of areas where the US is far from number one. As a nation, we are paying top dollar and getting mediocre overall results. We do well at some things. But there is really no excuse to have a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba. It's not pro-life either.

I am tired of hearing wealthy people whine about taxes. We are not a heavily taxed nation. Far from it. I lived during the 70's when the top rates were at 70%. The wealthy did just fine. In fact, I think there was far more productive investing than what we have now. Companies did a lot more R&D than they do now. Employee benefits were better too.

As for rationing, we do it all the time. I have an elderly mother. We spend a lot of time of the phone for treatments they will and will not provide. I have no idea where people get the idea that the government is any better or worse than an Aetna or Regence. We also ration by pricing routine care because people cannot afford it. Our system will make you wait indefinitely if you can't afford it. That is a lot longer than 2 years.

As far as COVID vaccines: I would expect that there would be a triage at first. I am all for physicians and nurses at my local hospital getting vaccinated before me. I would throw in police and firefighters too. The other issue is that if you achieve a high vaccination rate, the unvaccinated population is protected by vastly reduced transmission rates. I expect that once the vaccine is out there for a bit, everyone will be able to get a shot. But no, we won't have 330 million doses ready any time soon. So yes, I anticipate a hierarchy. I am sure that those with the most money will be in front.

THIS IS OFF THE SUBJECT!

Christ is in our midst!!

I'm sorry for my part in that.

Back to the subject. Is Father Loya still at his parish and functioning as a priest?

The reason I ask is that priests that I have known in similar situations have been removed from parishes and some have been forbidden to speak publicly without the bishop reviewing everything beforehand.

Who specifically are these "people that argue pro-life on the issue of abortion"? How does Father Tom Loya -- his position -- compare to those " people that argue pro-life"?

How sad that this happens frequently when a priest speaks the truth. We are seeing this in the Roman Catholic Church as well. In other words, you have to hope as a priest that your bishop has a strong taste for the truth rather than for kissing up to the lies and falsehoods of the worldlings and their evil desires.

Here's my attempt to unravel this without having any insider track on the issue. I rely on the words written and spoken and the meaning they convey, and do a "close reading."

First to the Parma website, official, to the point but unfortunately sloppy in its initial wording.

My reading: Fr. Loya has made claims. Claims --"an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt." [Definitions from Oxford Languages] -- suggests to me that there are problems with what Fr. Loya is saying.

The first line of the Press Release
Who is being directly quoted, Fr. Loya or is it that the words in quotes are just a representation of the gist of the inquiries? An official statement should be clear and in that it is not the onus is on Parma if it is misunderstood. Also “being censored” can be understood as active or passive: active, Fr. Loya has had his video or words already suppressed; passive, Fr. Loya must now submit his words/videos to a censor.

To me this says that one of the claims Fr. Loya has made is that he has said explicitly that he is “being censored.”

If he said he is “being censored,” where did he say it and when? Publicly? Privately? I could only trace the question through a youtube where Fr. Loya discusses the matter link [youtu.be]. There he does not say/claim he is “being censored.”

I found that link in one of the more informative articles online. That article (Byzantine Priest ‘Censored’ [churchmilitant.com]) reports:

Three things about that article and how casual inferences or misstatements can, unintentionally, blossom to overshadow the truth or create more questions:

1. "...ordered by Bp. Milan Lach, of the Eparchy of Parma in Ohio, to have his short video reflections reviewed by an archdiocesan censor ..." Is this actually at the level of the Metropolitan ("archdiocesan") church?

2. While the title has "‘Censored’" the url contains "byzantine-priest-censured."

3. The caption under the video linked above is "Fr. Loya explains to online followers that he is being censored." In that video he does not say those words, that is a characterization of the article and it is not in quotes in the caption. I've seen this happen recently where, in that instance, someone's (Senator Schumer so happens) comments in a video are (not improperly) characterized (i.e. other than his actual words) by a commentator, and then another correspondent comments on the characterization such that it can. if taken in isolation or on-the-fly, seem to convey that the characterization repeated was a quote of the original someone. Convoluted, indeed, more succinctly, reference "The Telephone Game."