To Practise or Not to Practise

The following brief item appeared in the Guardian a little over a week ago: "Canon Jeffrey John, a prominent Church of England advocate of blessing gay marriages and the ordination of practising homosexuals, was named yesterday as the new suffragan bishop of Reading."

The phrase "practising homosexuals" brought, as it almost always does, protests from readers. I quote from some of those I have received over the past couple of years: "'Practising' to me implies some sort of trade or occupation rather than anything connected to sexual orientation. Although I don't suppose any Guardian correspondent is a raging homophobe, it is the sort of language used by people who are. Could you not ask [journalists] to avoid it? It offends lots of decent people and doesn't seem to add anything in terms of meaning to the word 'homosexual' or, preferably, 'gay'."

Another reader wrote: "You have written before on sensitivity around language in relation to ethnicity, religion, physical difference, and mental illness, for example. Your writers need to show more sensitivity around gay identity and relationships. Practising is not a word I can recall reading about heterosexuals. Gay people don't need to practise sex. We either have sex or we don't, just like heterosexual people."

These arguments have been listened to and accepted, and a note was inserted in the style guide at least two years ago. Readers, and journalists, were reminded of it in a correction this week: "The style guide is unequivocal on this point: Practising homosexual - do not use this grotesque expression."

This created a problem for the paper's religious affairs correspondent, who sent me the following note: "Although I didn't have anything to do with the brief on 'practising homosexuals' referred to in today's corrections, I do think it's worth a comment - and perhaps consideration for our house style for future reference. The point is that the churches do make a differentiation between people who are homosexual and those who are engaged in active sexual relationships. The churches even recognise that homosexuals may become priests - where they draw the distinction is in whether they practise homosexuality or not. You can, in other words, be homosexual and a priest so long as you are celibate - just as if you're a Catholic priest you can be heterosexual so long as you don't have sex.

"The churches all draw the line at the practice of homosexuality; this is the whole significance of Rowan Williams's admission that he knowingly ordained a priest whom he knew to be practising - ie in a sexually active relationship. That is the condition that all the churches deem to be sinful or immoral.

"Therefore, there is a perfectly legitimate, indeed essential, qualification to be made here on the churches' position, or any bishop's position, on ordaining gays. This is the whole point of the Church of England and the Catholic church's policy. You cannot make sense of the religious debate without making this qualification and we absolutely need to continue making it. In this case, at least, [the style guide] is categorically wrong-headed."

The editor of the style guide was consulted and here is part of his note to the religious affairs correspondent: "I take your point about the church's definitions but they never use the term 'practising heterosexual' to describe a straight priest who has lapsed, do they? To me this term is clearly homophobic and the way round the problem is to refer to sexually active priests, whether gay or straight."

The same colleague also told me, "I feel it is important we follow this style and the sub who was responsible for the nib [news in brief] should have known better. It's been in the style guide for a long time and I have now reminded everyone of that."

Our religious affairs correspondent is not convinced. "I think any circumlocution is unfortunate not only because it adds unnecessary words - 'engaged in a homosexual relationship' as opposed to 'practising homosexual' - but also because it obscures and may falsify meaning (what about a priest engaged in casual gay sex? What about a priest in a stable long-term celibate relationship?)."

The paper, in my view, should seek to avoid the phrase. If and when the Anglican church uses it we should make it clear that we are quoting. The church's document, Issues in Human Sexuality, 1991, refers to "homosexual practice", but it nowhere uses the specific phrase "practising homosexual". Your views are welcome.