‘Nobody said anything’? You’re wrong, Your Grace

July 25, 2012 10:43 am

To the many friends of the late David Cairns, Archbishop Philip Tartaglia’s comments about him will be beyond the pale. A reminder of what he told an audience at Magdalene College, Oxford, earlier this year:

“If what I have heard is true about the relationship between the physical and mental health of gay men, if it is true, then society is being very quiet about it. Recently in Scotland there was a gay Catholic MP died at the age of 44 or so and nobody said anything. And why his body should just shut down at that age… Obviously he could have had a disease that would have killed anybody. But you seem to hear so many stories about this kind of thing, but society won’t address it.”

Where to start?

First of all (and this doesn’t really need stating at all), David died after a long and painful fight with acute pancreatitis. Had he been a straight man rather than a gay man, the illness would have caused just as much devastation to his body. So why didn’t His Grace know that? Why did he use the dreadful circumstances of David’s death as a prop to support his arguments that there is something morally wrong about homosexuality? We should be clear: the Archbishop didn’t know David Cairns. He may well have met David at some point (David met Pope John Paul a couple of times – quite the networker!) but he clearly knew nothing of him. So why use him as an example at all? Didn’t this man of God understand that his comments, unsupported by fact or reason, would prove hurtful to his friends and family?

The full text of my letter to the Archbishop is here. There’s just one thing I would like to have added to it, had the red mist not descended when I heard what he’d said about my friend, and I had taken a little more time to write it, and it’s this:

The Archbishop decries society for not discussing the “real” reasons for David’s (and other, unspecified, homosexual men’s) death. “Nobody said anything,” he told his audience.

Wrong. You just weren’t listening, Your Grace. Lots of us said plenty at the time. We spoke about David’s commitment – to his party and to his constituency. We spoke about his passion – for his partner, Dermot, and for his belief in politics as a force for change. We spoke about his loyalty, his compassion, his intelligence and his wit. We spoke of all these things, Your Grace, at a time when we all needed to be comforted in the wake of his terrible, pointless death.

No, we didn’t say the things you wanted to hear. But that’s because the things you wanted to hear, Your Grace, were not the truth.

Tom Harris is MP for Glasgow South and a Shadow Defra Minister

  • Holby18

    Well said Tom.  This man is an absolute disgrace and if I was involved in the Church Heirarchy in Scotland, I would remove him from his post.  By all accounts David Cairns was a lovely man.  I can recall when he was being briefed against – oh yes I can remember the behaviour of Gordon Browns thugs, he responded with dignity when in reality he could have come out fighting.  His partner penned how David felt about the briefing some time after his death.  Those responsible should hang their heads in shame and they are still around! 

    I am sure David would have been forgiving of this ignorant, cossetted and biased individual.  As a Catholic I know that not all Leaders share these views. 

  • treborc

    Does not matter if he was gay or so called straight, this illness can hit anyone at any time and if it’s serious the out look is not good, I know, having a bowel and bladder dysfunction from my spinal injury, I have been treated twice for this, and both times my wife has been told to expect the worse it’s an horrendous illness .

    But when your looking for a excuse to back your belief of course then  people will use words to prove a point. Labour  to back welfare reforms used the words work shy and scroungers, workless is still used ,we see people taking there own lives from this.

    Words can hurt , Sticks and stones may break my bones words will never hurt me, of course that saying is said by somebody who I’m sure did not have abuse thrown at him for being different.

    This was a stupid statement to state and I’m sure after the incident is raised he will be told to apologises but the fact is he said it and more then likely believes it.

  • MonkeyBot5000

    Why did he use the dreadful circumstances of David’s death as a prop to
    support his arguments that there is something morally wrong about
    homosexuality?

    Because he won’t ever have any facts to use.

    If there’s no obvious victim of the moral evil you’re decrying (cf murder, theft), misappropriated anecdotes and vague metaphors are pretty much all you’ve got left.

    • treborc

      I’m just watching on TV the groups who are refusing to accept gay marriages, and the possibility of this ending up in a court of human rights and equality laws.

      religious groups surely have to change or be told to change or could even end up being banned .

      we are told Catholic churches, Mosques,and some Church of England refusing to allow same sex marriages, and I can see somebody taking this one and going through the court system.

      • Hugh

        Banning Catholicism, Anglicanism and Islam would be a curious human rights victory, I think.

        • treborc

          Banning would not be the word I use expensive maybe, but if it’s legal for two people of the same sex to marry, how can it be right for a religious group to refuse, it’s either legal or it’s not.

          I’m watching it on TV and the fact is churches can refuse to carry out a marriage  on moral grounds, so is it legal or illegal and what would happen if  couple did demand the court give them a legal right.

          legal  then surely you cannot refuse. seems a bit of a mess to me.

          • Hugh

             ”Banned” is the word you used. You seem to fail to distinguish between legal marriage and the religious ceremony.

          • treborc

             What the difference is it legal for people to get married , yes or no.

            If it le4gal then religious groups have to comply with the law.

            or is this another botch up

          • Hugh

             The difference is the legal institution is a contract between two people and the state, conferring legal rights and obligations, between each other and the state.

            The religious ceremony on its own has no legal standing (as far as I know) and is a way for those that choose to align themselves with a particular religion to have their marriage recognised and blessed by its god and their fellow worshipers.

            While I’d be very unhappy if the government stopped me getting married, and might feel it right to challenge the constitutionality of their doing so, I would be less surprised if my local Rabbi didn’t feel obliged to bless my marriage since I reject his theology. I’d also be a little wary of the state interfering in such a case.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

             The State won’t be. It will be up to the churches or other religious groups to make that choice

          • Hugh

             Yes, I know. treborc was suggesting it shouldn’t be.

          • Brumanuensis

            Well, broadly true, except in the case of the CoE, where its established nature complicates matters.

          • Hugh

             I’m not entirely sure establishment has much bearing on the marriage issue, does it? Tthe legal situation is the same if you get married as a methodist, and there’s no compulsion to attend or link to your constitutional rights. It’s not possible to argue that establishment means the church’s teaching must match the legal framework either; there’s all sorts of things the Church disapproves of that are perfectly legal.

          • http://www.facebook.com/harriet.hume Harriet Hume

            You say”if it’s legal for two people of the same sex to marry” – but it’s not legal, . Not if they want to marry each other.
            Everyone has an EQUAL right to marry a person of the other sex who is not their blood relative. That is equality and it is the law.
            The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that same sex “marriage” is NOT a right and they refused a case brought on those grounds last year. It was definitive. Two lesbians in France tried to argue that they had a “human right” to get married and the judges threw it out. They were told they could have a civil partnership but NOT re-design the institution of marriage. So it seems that you are  behind the times. Our courts have to stay in line with the ECHR decision. The ECHR also recently ruled that a brother and sister could not claim it was their “human right” to marry. the ECHR upholds that marriage is by definition the union of a MAN to a WOMAN who may not be his close blood relative.Furthermore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that to practice your religion is an inalienable right. Any law that tries to violate that is simply not a legitimate law or recognized by international consent.So :-      GEDDOVERIT!

          • treborc

            hahahahahahahahah  really lady get a life.

        • Mario Peebles

          Just ban God and be done with it! 

          • Hugh

            No, because if you’re the type of person keen on banning God you’re never done.

          • Brumanuensis

            How can we ban something that doesn’t exist?

      • http://www.facebook.com/harriet.hume Harriet Hume

        The European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that same sex “marriage” is NOT a right and they refused a case brought on those grounds last year. It was definitive. Two lesbians in France tried to argue that they had a “human right” to get married and the judges threw it out. They were told they could have a civil partnership but NOT re-design the institution of marriage.
        So it seems that you are  behind the times. Our courts have to stay in line with the ECHR decision.
        The ECHR also recently ruled that a brother and sister could not claim it was their “human right” to marry. the ECHR upholds that marriage is by definition the union of a MAN to a WOMAN who may not be his close blood relative.Furthermore, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that to practice your religion is an inalienable right. Any law that tries to violate that is simply not a legitimate law or recognized by international consent.
        So :-
              GEDDOVERIT!

        • treborc

           Brother and sister , who the hell said anything about that, your not another of these  religious weirdo’s  are you.

    • http://www.facebook.com/harriet.hume Harriet Hume

      He has plenty of facts to use.

       In fact the life expectancy of homosexual men IS notably lower than average ( and consult the statistics of life-insurance companies or the BMA),  and 20% of them already have HIV. One of the side-effects of anti-retroviral drugs used for HIV suppression is PANCREATITIS.  Go and check this on the websites of the NHS. So the suspicions of the bishop were not a sign of being “ill-informed”. Homosexuals have far higher than average rates of HIV, MRSA (the antibiotic-resistant superbug), virulent-strain syphilis that is resistant to antibiotics, ditto gonorrhea, genital warts, venereal lymphatic disease,  dysentry, crab lice, scabies, hepatitis, bowel cancer, anal cysts and “gay bowel syndrome”.  AIDS was caused by the fact that semen is immuno-suppressive and when inserted into the digestive tract causes damage to the entire immune system.
      2% of the population but 25% of the deaths by auto-erotic asphyxiation and bondage disasters.
      Transgender men (sorry “Women”) commit an extraordinarily high rate of violent crime and murder, confirming that they are unstable and dangerous as a category. Their skills in somehow zipping themselves into sports bags from the inside do not provide sufficient protection!
         So stop knocking the Archbishop and wake up to the  fact that the gay agenda is one of self-harm.  

      • MonkeyBot5000

        Just so we’re clear, here’s the Gay Agenda in full:

        1. Get equal treatment under the law.
        2. Get equal treatment by society.
        3. Get fabulous hair.

        • treborc

          Do not swallow a seaman, well unless he takes off his uniform

      • Crixus

        Hold on a moment. In the wider world AIDS is more a heterosexual disease than a homosexual disease isn’t it, especially in Africa, where millions of women are infected with HIV? 

  • http://twitter.com/LouMcCudden Louise McCudden

    Well done Tom Harris! I cannot believe how hateful, disrespectful, and emotionally intrusive some of these people can be. 

    It reminds me of Jan Moir’s heap of dog piddle that she scrawled out about Stephen Gately. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/harriet.hume Harriet Hume

      It sounds like you who is “hateful”. The archbishop is expressing his concern for the self-harming behaviour of a group of disturbed people. By encouraging them you are the one guilty of HATE.

      • treborc

         Go away you stupid person

  • AnotherOldBoy

    Magdalene College, Oxford?  Shurely shome mishstake!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    I hope that all of us here will agree that the Archbishop’s remarks were both wrong and inappropriate, and he needs to apologise and mean what he says

    • http://www.facebook.com/harriet.hume Harriet Hume

      No you are wrong. Read my comments above and stop deluding yourself.

  • Marie Loewe

    Well said Tom. It’s hard to understand why some people claim to justify their ignorance through religion. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/harriet.hume Harriet Hume

      The archbishop is not ignorant. You are. 

       In fact the life expectancy of homosexual men IS notably lower than average,  and 20% of them already have HIV. One of the side-effects of anti-retroviral drugs used for HIV suppression is PANCREATITIS.  Go and check this on the websites of the NHS. So the suspicions of the bishop were not a sign of being “ill-informed”. Homosexuals have far higher than average rates of HIV, MRSA (the antibiotic-resistant superbug), virulent-strain syphilis that is resistant to antibiotics, ditto gonorrhea, genital warts, venereal lymphatic disease,  dysentry, crab lice, scabies, hepatitis, bowel cancer, anal cysts and “gay bowel syndrome”.  AIDS was caused by the fact that semen is immuno-suppressive and when inserted into the digestive tract causes damage to the entire immune system.
      2% of the population but 25% of the deaths by auto-erotic asphyxiation and bondage disasters.
      Transgender men (sorry “Women”) commit an extraordinarily high rate of violent crime and murder, confirming that they are unstable and dangerous as a category. Their skills in somehow zipping themselves into sports bags from the inside do not provide sufficient protection!
         So stop knocking the Archbishop and wake up to the  fact that the gay agenda is one of self-harm.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/harriet.hume Harriet Hume

    The hysteria against the Catholic bishop is wrong. In fact the life expectancy of homosexual men IS notably lower than average,  and 20% of them already have HIV. One of the side-effects of anti-retroviral drugs used for HIV suppression is PANCREATITIS.  Go and check this on the websites of the NHS. So the suspicions of the bishop were not a sign of being “ill-informed”. Homosexuals have far higher than average rates of HIV, MRSA (the antibiotic-resistant superbug), virulent-strain syphilis that is resistant to antibiotics, ditto gonorrhea, genital warts, venereal lymphatic disease,  dysentry, crab lice, scabies, hepatitis, bowel cancer, anal cysts and “gay bowel syndrome”.  AIDS was caused by the fact that semen is immuno-suppressive and when inserted into the digestive tract causes damage to the entire immune system.
    2% of the population but 25% of the deaths by auto-erotic asphyxiation and bondage disasters.
    Transgender men (sorry “Women”) commit an extraordinarily high rate of violent crime and murder, confirming that they are unstable and dangerous as a category. Their skills in somehow zipping themselves into sports bags from the inside do not provide sufficient protection!
       So stop knocking the Archbishop and wake up to the  fact that the gay agenda is one of self-harm. 

    • treborc

      What an utter useless load of rubbish, I notice you have been doing the rounds now for a while on other sites .

    • Crixus

      Can you back this up with references to literature and/or reputable websites which confirm the statistics you’ve quoted? I can’t honestly remember reading anything anywhere about transgender men being violent. And by the “sports bag” thing I suppose you’re writing about Gareth Williams the GCHQ guy? Was he transgender? Or gay? I don’t remember any evidence supportive of this – in fact I kind of remember the police denying rumours that Williams was gay and a cross-dresser and that gay magazines, bondage gear and the phone numbers of gay escort men were found in the apartment near his body.   

      I think you’re making most of what you’ve written up for whatever reason.

      But if you’re not please give sensible references to back up what you’re saying.

      • treborc

         She seems to be a religious zealot from the good old USA

Latest

  • Featured The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    The Loneliness of the Long Distance Leader

    That’s it. Enough is enough. I try to be reasonable. But you can only push somebody so far. It’s time to sort this out once and for all. I am fed up with this huge and growing army of sycophants and cheerleaders constantly bigging up Ed Miliband, and making helpful or supportive interventions on his behalf. The list is endless. Let’s shine a spotlight on the guilty men and women. There’s… well, there’s… er… you know… er… thingy… on a [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    We do not stigmatise your country, Deputy Prime Minister. It is you and your party we find distasteful

    Last Saturday a senior European politician wrote an article in the British press which made you want to shout at the computer screen. Not such an unusual event, you might think, but this was not a debater’s disagreement as one might have had with the viewpoint of a Tory, a Gaullist or a Christian Democrat. It was one which also left the reader feeling a bit nauseous. And that is because, rather than an honestly-expressed case justified with some evidence, it was [...]

    Read more →
  • News Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Watson urges investigation of “supressed” Leveson evidence – Media roundup: May 21st, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Labour proposes teachers spend time in industry “All teachers involved in vocational education would have to spend a period of each year in industry, under Labour plans to integrate further education with emerging skills gaps identified by businesses. The strategy – announced on [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Is party politics dying out?

    Is party politics dying out?

    This week has brought the role of party members and activists back to the front pages. That’s rather unusual to be honest – and rightly so, as party members (swivel eyed and otherwise) make up only 1% of the British population. Being a party member is already a niche interest. You are somewhat odd if you’re a party member – sorry to break that to you, but of course I’m odd too (and quite possibly odder than you). What swivel-eyed [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    From: HERBERT, Nick Sent: 20 May 2013 16:29 To: HERBERT, Nick Subject: Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill – voting today   Dear Colleague Thank you for your support for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill at Second Reading. You will be aware of the amendments tabled by Tim Loughton and others (new Clauses 10 & 11) to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples I have no issue with the principle of this proposal, but I am very worried that adding this measure to the [...]

    Read more →