At the risk of becoming one of the mono-topical individuals I’ve written against, I wanted to conclude this series of thoughts about chastity by sharing the idea that struck me on the way to work – and that was a definition of chastity.

I don’t actually expect – or want! – to usurp St Thomas or the Catechism, but it did occur to me that we could change the odd character of some forms of contemporary chastity, both as it is discussed and as it is lived, if we thought of it thus: Chastity is the virtue by which a man loves his state in life so well that he does not try to steal for himself the privileges of other states of life, particularly with regards to sexual activity. (Obviously you can say ‘one’ instead of ‘man’ if you object to that word! It’s just my habit there.)

That is why a single man can take a different woman to dinner every night if he wants to, but he cannot sleep with any of them, while a married man can sleep with his wife, but cannot take a different woman out to dinner every night. You can probably see other applications of this definition yourself. And, if our definition of chastity was based upon a love of all states of life, it might mean that we’d help each other out more by treating each others’ situations with more respect.

(Also, if anyone wants to know, I decided, apropos Mr Renner, that the answer is ‘no.’ If the shorts are anything to go by, ‘Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters’ is unforgivable.)