32 © 2016 The Institute for Faith and Learning at Baylor University

Chastity as a Virtue
B Y M A T T F R A D D

Chastity is not a teeth-gritting ability to avoid violating

I
t comes as a surprise that people can come to despise the very things
they deeply desire, but it happens. In fact, I think for many us it is hap-
pening today with regard to morality generally and with the ideal of
chastity specifically.
Through a simple example, let’s examine how such a dramatic reversal of
attitudes can occur. Perhaps when we were children our parents said things
like “Do not drink Coca-Cola all the time,” which we translated into “Thou
shalt not drink Coca-Cola just because we say so.” Being children, we jumped
to the conclusion that our parents were arbitrarily restraining us, were capri-
ciously restricting what we could do at the moment. And if we disobeyed
the “thou shalt not” and drank the Coca-Cola anyway, then when our par-
ents found out, we reacted poorly: “But I really wanted it now, Mum!” Maybe
our parents tried to explain that drinking soda all the time was unhealthy,
but the immature versions of ourselves were not listening to them and
sometimes threw a fit that involved knocking things over. At least, that
was my experience. And it was probably induced by my insane sugar high!
Of course, the very idea of delaying gratification makes little sense to us
when we are children. And what ten-year-old child really understands and
cares about long-term health? Instead, we wonder why we should delay
doing what our desires and feelings are telling us to do—namely, quenching
a deep thirst for that delicious, child-obesity-inducing, fizzy liquid. As a kid
hooked on sugary drinks, when my options were drinking water (rather
than soda) or becoming dehydrated, I was tempted to choose the latter.
Now avid Coca-Cola fanatics—and here I speak from experience because
I used to be one—have several options when people offer us water and
   Chastity as a Virtue 33

remind us that drinking it, rather than the soda we crave, is better for our
bodies. We might assume these folks care for us, accept what they say to be
wisdom, and thank them for sharing their water (and their insight) with us.
But at the other extreme (and I admit there are other responses on the spec-
trum between these two), we might assume these folks are trying to manage
us, reject their advice, and despise their water (and maybe even the water
drinkers, for that matter) because we feel we do not have what it takes to
drink water like we should. After all, we love Coca-Cola! We might even
gulp down some soda as a protest against their advice.1
The first response is gratitude. But the second is an emotion-stance that
social psychologists, following the nineteenth-century philosopher Friedrich
Nietzsche, call ressentiment.2 Ressentiment involves disparaging and rejecting
what is good and strong because we feel unable to attain it. At some deep
level we still know the thing is good and desire it; but feeling we cannot
attain it, we self-deceptively tell ourselves it is bad and reject it.
When we develop ressentiment, the old ordering of life toward the good
must come down. To continue with our example, after people tell us that
drinking as much Coca-Cola as we want is unhealthy, but we have ignored
their warnings and drunk it until our health wastes away, it is quite possible
that we will not go back and thank them for trying to warn us, but will turn
against the ideas they stood for. In a fit of ressentiment, we might reject their
whole approach to denying strong soda-desires and subjugating them to
reason. We might judge those advisors to be weaker people who were try-
ing to impose their view of happiness on us. And here is the final twist: we
might think we need some precepts in order to free ourselves from their
constant attack. So, we replace “Thou shalt not drink Coca-Cola all the
time” and its implied rationale “because Coca-Cola sets you on the path to
Type II diabetes” with a new rule: “Thou shalt drink Coca-Cola whenever
you feel like it.” Feels good, right?
But, of course, we still experience the negative physical consequences
of indulging our desires for Coca-Cola and overthrowing the old order that
managed our soda intake: disharmony starts in our bodies and our health
suffers. Drinking wholesome amounts of water is the perfection of the human
body, and when we abandon that regimen, we suffer the consequences. Our
very thirstiness, because it is no longer oriented towards what is really good,
slowly begins to consume us like a poison. Our soda-distorted instinct to
drink slowly destroys us.
There is evidence that something like this process is causing many peo-
ple today, even Christians, to experience ressentiment toward morality gen-
erally and toward specific moral ideals like chastity.
Consider that all of us value truly loving relationships that we can give
ourselves to completely, body and soul. We want these relationships to
accord with our human dignity and, if we are Christians, we want them to
weave into the happiness that God intends for us in this life. “Chastity” is
34 Chastity

the traditional name for this ideal that we so deeply value. Chastity is “the
successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity
of man in his bodily and spiritual being.”3 Within the context of marriage,
the ideal of chastity is that the love between a man and a woman—body and
soul, sexual and spiritual—will be permanent, exclusive, and faithful. In the
context of singleness, it is that we, in our loving one another, will not misuse
our sexuality, but will be celibate.
It is a common mistake to think that the ideal of chastity applies only
within marriage, or that it especially esteems marriage. All persons will be
single for at least part of their lives, and some people will be single through-
out their lives—because they are called to the single life by God, or because
they never find a partner amidst the sexual chaos and confusion of our cul-
ture. Yet all of us are called to chastity. Furthermore, we yearn for chastity,
for “the integration of sexuality within [our] person.”
However, we live in a culture that makes it very difficult for us to live
into the ideal of chastity. All around us we see marriages that are imperma-
nent, personal loyalties that are problematically divided, and spouses and
friends who are unfaithful. Sexuality is misused, within marriages and in
singleness, in ways that are selfish, in ways that are abusive, and in ways that
do not honor God. We do not see very many good examples of people living
chastely and, so, we end up despising the ideal. We call chastity “oppressive”;
we call it “naïve.” Lacking the strength in ourselves and having little com-
munity support to obtain the ideal we desire, we end up resenting it. Many
aspects of popular culture—songs, television shows and movies, celebrities—
reflect back to us and encourage our collective ressentiment of chastity.
Undoubtedly, some of the contemporary scorning of chastity is based on
misconceptions people have about the ideal. But, I suspect those distorted
ideas about chastity are motivated, in part, by ressentiment. (Recall that res-
sentiment is self-deceptive about the good, because it is easier to reject and
despise something that appears foolish.)
One common misconception is that chastity is purely negative, that it
revolves around not having sex. Admittedly, during singleness and at times
in marriage it is appropriate to abstain from sex. But abstinence is not the
heart of chastity. It couldn’t be, because abstinence by itself does not express
any virtue. Abstaining from sex might simply result from two people delay-
ing the fulfillment of their desires to have sex until the opportunity arises.
Furthermore, sexual abstinence only identifies what the people are not
doing. What should they be doing?
People require positive actions to convey their love for one another.
Chaste persons are in control of their sexual desires rather than those desires
being in control of them. Chastity enables them to love one another in accord
with their common dignity. Simply put, chastity is a sort of reverence: a
chaste person reveres and respects the other person by making sure that
before they have sex, both are united in a common aim—namely, a marriage
   Chastity as a Virtue 35

commitment whose mutual goal is the gift of self to the other. When people
will the good for one another in this way, they do not act solely on passing
desires and feelings, but rather on their commitment to help the other per-
son attain the good and honor God.
Let me illustrate these points with an example from my own marriage.
I remember a date with my wife in San Diego’s Little Italy. On my iPhone I
decided to play Dean Martin’s “Sway,” and we began dancing in the street
as though no one was watching. We ignored the weird looks from passers-
by, which I deserved due to my lack of dancing talent. (People who see me
dance often ask, “Dude, are you okay?”) It was silly and inelegant, but we
made each other sway as our friend Dean crooned through the cell phone
speakers. And we came home from the date ready to make love.
Now, my wife and I use natural family planning, a method to help cou-
ples either achieve or postpone pregnancy by monitoring naturally occurring
signs of fertility during the woman’s menstrual cycle. There we were ready
to make love, and my wife said, “Honey, I’m fertile.” We had a decision to
make—together. So, we discussed our situation, saying things like, “Are we
ready for another child?” “I know we are hard on money right now. Is this
the right decision?” “The kids right now are a handful. I’m worried I can’t
handle more at this moment.” Our common bond of married love guided the
discussion of the action we should take together.
That particular night we decided not to have sex. We watched our
favorite show The Office
instead. Not as much fun,
but still fun. Was our sexual
abstinence a purely negative We see few examples of people living
action? No. Our decision to
abstain was a positive choice
chastely and, so, we end up despising the
of love. We chose a goal
together as one, united by
ideal. We call chastity “oppressive” and
our marriage. This positive “naïve.” Lacking the strength in ourselves
action which expressed and
enriched our love was a fruit and having little community support to obtain
of chastity.
Now I do not want to be the ideal we desire, we end up resenting it.
misunderstood. The decision
to not have sex was not the
essential feature of chastity
that evening. Chastity does not say just “Do not have sex” or “Have sex.”
My wife and I could have said, “OK, let’s go ahead with our sexual desires
and be open to another child,” and that equally would have been an expres-
sion of chastity. Chastity came to the fore in our reverence for one another,
in our stopping to acknowledge and examine our sexual desires, and in ori-
enting our lives toward the good, as we saw it together.
36 Chastity

Chastity is not a momentary feeling, but a habit of the will that gives us
the power to say “no”—to sex outside of the relationship of marriage, and
to sex inside the relationship of marriage when it does not further the unity
of the spouses. It also encourages us to say “yes” to sex that expresses and
nurtures the unifying married love. In each context—single life and married
life—chastity goes out to the other in a desire to love the person as the other.
It does not prevent every dis-
agreement or fill our lives
with bunnies, sunshine, and
Another common misconception about chastity rainbows like a Walt Disney
is that it revolves around repressing sexual movie. But it integrates our
sexual longings with our
commitment to love the other
desire and not thinking about sex. This, I person through good and
suspect, has it almost exactly backwards. bad times, sick and healthy
times, poor and rich times,
and ultimately the goodbye
of the loved one through
death. Chastity allows us to hold others up for the sake of their personal
dignity, not abstaining from inappropriate sexual acts in a negative way, but
channeling our desire through positive actions appropriate to our shared life.
Here’s another common misconception about chastity—that it revolves
around repressing sexual desire and not thinking about sex. This, I suspect,
has it almost exactly backwards. To see why, let’s be clear on the difference
between sexual desire and lust. These terms are not synonymous; lust does
not mean “strong sexual desire.” Sexual desire is a gift from God that must
live up to the high demands of love, expressed in practical wisdom and
chastity. Lust, on the other hand, does not propel us to love. Lust does not
say, “This is my body given for you”; it says, “This is your body taken for
me.” Since this is so, chastity has no interest in repressing sexual desire,
but it would really like to eliminate lust.
We live in a sexualized culture. But that fact is increasingly difficult for
us to recognize. We are becoming like the baby fish who said to its mother,
“Where’s all this water everyone’s talking about?” A distorted sexuality is
the water we swim in. I can remember when the word “sexy” was an adjec-
tive that meant “alluring,” but now people use it for donuts and ideas and
plants, you name it. One day I pulled into work in my new car and a col-
league said admiringly, “Man, that’s a sexy car.” I replied, “It’s a minivan!”
When I say our culture is “sexualized,” I mean we talk a lot about sex.
We joke about it and write in bathroom stalls about it, but we rarely stop to
think about sex. Frank Sheed (1897-1981), the Australian apologist, explains:
The typical modern man practically never thinks about sex. He
dreams of it, of course, by day and by night; he craves for it; he
   Chastity as a Virtue 37

pictures it, is stimulated or depressed by it, slavers over it. But this
frothing, steaming activity is not thinking. Slavering is not thinking,
picturing is not thinking, craving is not thinking, dreaming is not
thinking. Thinking means bringing the power of the mind to bear:
thinking about sex means striving to see sex in its innermost reality
and in the function it is meant to serve.4
Since this is our situation, chastity has no interest in our not thinking
about sex; it would really like for us to think well about sex. The place to
start is with the telos for which God created us, and why God made the other
creatures and us sexual beings: “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:22, 28).
This tells us that sex, sexual desire, and orgasms are good. Chastity wants
us to think about what good it is that they were created for. How do they fit
within God’s plan for us to love one another and honor God?
The virtue of chastity calls us, as sexual beings, to revere ourselves as
creatures made in the image of God and made to honor God through our
actions—through how we do have sex and do not have sex. And it calls us
to revere other persons for the sake of the other person’s good and ultimate
happiness. When we think about it, this loving reverence for ourselves and
others is what we deeply desire. It would be a shame to become confused
about chastity and despise it.

NOTES
1 Many Coca-Cola drinkers are not fanatical in this way. They are fine people, as far as I
know, and I apologize in advance for besmirching them with a playfully extended analogy.
2 In On the Genealogy of Morality I.10-12 (1887), Nietzsche famously deploys the concept
of ressentiment in his account of how traditional morality arises: he says that because
weaker people felt ressentiment toward the better and stronger people who dominated
them, the weak ones self-deceptively denied the goodness of the strong people and
gravitated to moral rules in order to control them. While some societal rules and struc-
tures may arise this way, I strongly deny that all morality has this ‘genealogy.’ Indeed, in
this article I am flipping the tables on Nietzsche by suggesting that some opposition to
divinely-given morality is an expression of ressentiment.
3 Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), §2337. The catechism is available online at
www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM (accessed September 24, 2016).
4 Frank Sheed, “The Nature of Sex and Marriage,” in Society and Sanity: Understanding
How to Live Well Together (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2013 [1953]), 99-109, here
citing 99.

MATT FRADD
is founder and executive director of The Porn Effect, a ministry of Integrity
Restored, and lives in Georgia.