It is almost a cause of despair to see how poorly people read nowadays. Perhaps the naysayers here simply did not attend carefully enough to the original articles.
1. We made it absolutely clear that we exclude many forms of dancing, either because they are formless, graceless, and crass (freeform 'dancing' in nightclubs, etc.), or because they are too sensual (tango, slow dancing where a couple is pressed up against each other). Likewise I made it clear that I am referring to formal social ballroom dancing and country dancing or contra dancing. In fact, I even admitted a preference for group dances over couple dances.
2. I also made it sufficiently clear that I am praising dances that are well-regulated as to the music and types of dances chosen, and that do involve a certain level of chaperoning. The kids are not being thrown into each other's arms for necking. Good heavens, has any of the objectors here actually BEEN to the kind of dance I'm describing - the kind shown in the pictures? Have they danced an English country dance, or a Virginial Reel, or learned the waltz (as it is typically done nowadays, which is not a body-to-body hug), or the swing? I highly doubt it, because if they had, they would see how quickly their arguments melt away.
3. Julian's article argued directly against the claim that any contact between unmarried persons of opposite sexes is a near occasion of sin and therefore immoral -- a position that absolutely cannot be defended in moral theology. This position leads to absurdities and therefore is not compatible with Catholicism that prizes faith and reason.
4. The situation of our young people in 2024 is much different, and much worse, than it was in earlier times. They do not have many healthy opportunities for morally upright in-person mingling, as modernity has atomized and fragmented our societies (our "villages," as it were). They are stuck on the internet, working jobs with long hours, and maybe, if they are lucky, seeing their friends at a Sunday TLM. The argument here very much depends on seeing that dancing has a social context and that such contexts can and do change over time. Applying like a simplistic template what St John Chrysostom said in the fourth century or what St John Vianney said in Ars (see Mary Reed Newland description above) to a social ballroom dance in 2024 is a glaring violation of how moral argumentation should be made.
5. Finally, if someone is inflamed with lust by the mere sight, let alone arm's-length touch, of a lady, or by the holding of her hand as part of a group dance, then I believe he should schedule an appointment with a psychiatrist, as he has a lot of work to do to heal a diseased psyche. If there is someone who finds even a well-regulated dance an occasion of sin, he should not attend it; but that says more about him than it does about dancing as a healthy recreation.
This article is so very timely as many Traditional Catholic "Society" communities are isolated into what appear to be joyless martyrdoms stripped of all unsanctioned activities, recreational or otherwise. It's unfathomable to me that kids are being raised in what look from the outside like cloistered, ascetic religious orders. I know of no precedent in Catholic history where such arrangements have resulted in a flourishing of the Faith. The records we have of such communities tell us they go extinct in a single generation.
Well, it would seem you really stepped into a hornets nest with this post :-)
FWIW, I find myself squarely on your (Peter, Julian & Dorothy's) side.
Full disclosure, I have danced* and enjoyed it for many decades, ball room, country 'pattern" dances* and some square dancing* - including some of the Ceilidh dances* referred to in Dorothy's web site. Most of it was learned in my 'later' years. Hence I am very 'biased'.
Dancing* from an early age, particularly for country dances* aside from ballroom dancing*, will benefit even people with two 'left feet' - is that 'two right feet' for southpaws??. The time spent learning the steps for the sometimes very intricate patterns will take effort and occupy their minds and time with better things than leaving the alone and 'bored'. Nor does one need the perfect floors essential for ballroom dancing*.
As for your critics, I do see and accept some of their points regarding potential dangers to purity etc and those definitely pose a problem, particularly in this day and age.
But, which parent would refuse to teach or have their children taught how to drive 'properly'?
Well, it is considered essential & important, will most likely be the 'reason' given. And, even when driving is well taught, are there not dangers associated when your youngsters 'borrow the car'??
But I would argue that a total ban on dancing* is neither appropriate nor effective, in fact I see it as harmful. Harmful, because it avoids addressing and discussing in a controlled and safe environment, topics and issues which are essential for your children and young adults to understand and incorporate into their lives. At least, if your serious about their salvation, again IMO.
But IMNSHO, there is more to this.
My first reaction after reading some of the comments was: "all of this criticism about dangers inherent in dancing* (& purity) is posted on the 'net". Are there not nearly equivalent (and as dangerous) aspects present as part of using the internet, watching TV or movies or even going out into the public square - shopping malls, grocery stores?? I certainly find all of that very challenging.
Can I assume that your critics have mastered all of those issues to the point where they feel justified in engaging in those 'activities' without the same qualifications about the inherent dangers?. Or are all of these folks home-bound hermits, have never been to a pub or movie theater, shopping mall or beach? Obviously, they do feel justified in facing these dangers on their daily lives, including those inherent in the use of the 'net.
Of course, the ready objection to my 'objection', at least the use of the internet, shopping (for clothes and groceries), et al. is: those activities are 'essential in today's world'. Perhaps they are, but people lived well enough before malls and the internet and we could go back, even individually. So they are not 'that essential'.
Again in, IMNSHO, there is a much more important aspect to "dancing"*: training our young people to be able to handle the dangers to purity in an appropriate, supervised, acceptable and interesting - to the young folk - way.
With the current trends in public schools, leading some parents to home schooling, this point seems to have grown in importance because for those children, there is so much less opportunity to interact with others of both the same as well as the opposite sex., under supervision and in an appropriate and non-threatening way.
Along with the intricacies of the dance, there will be ample time to 'teach' them by example and instructions how to treat & respect others. Where else will these 'children' get appropriate and supervised instruction on this topic. Where else will they get a chance to learn how to apply the principles and admonitions regarding purity?
And, at least in my books, those skills and habits are way more essential than driving, shopping, using the internet or any other skill.
A second aspect I consider equally important. Your young adults are most likely expected to marry and raise their own children. If they don't have the skill to give and receive the respect from their peers or partners, if they don't even know how to look for and evaluate this crucial prerequisite trait in a life partner, where do you expect them to learn that skill. IMO, you will have failed them miserably.
* always assuming good care to observe propriety and decency, decorum is preserved.
This is the only way I could think of to have the string 'dance' stand out in order to draw attention to the meaning and qualification I insist on attaching to my use of the string and avoid the needless arguments about the intended meaning.
I think the need for this article is well demonstrated by some of the comments. Leaving aside the theology here, human nature comes into play. There are myriad examples of activities being banned which generated a counter - reaction, sometimes extreme. Prohibition, the banning of Christmas under the Puritans, banning or burning books, and more recently the banning of physical contact during covid-tide just being a few that spring to mind.
As Catholics, we really don't need the Fun Police. If people can't have natural enjoyment in life, they will not remain Catholics. Nuns and monks have a laugh and a joke in recreations ( and have even been known to play party games), and Jesus certainly went to a few parties himself. Catholic dancing? I'm all for it!
Wonderful three articles in one! As someone from Europe living in America I must say I miss the opportunity to attend dances like the ones Dorothy organizes in Edinburgh or the balls in Vienna. Good music and modest dress give young people the opportunity to socialize and not be awkward with eachother -like our current teenages who have most of them a totally unhealthy relationship with the opposite sex. By calling all dancing sin/immoral we are robbing ourselves of a healthy and joyful exercise for mind and soul.
I've been a huge fun of this substack for a while now, but must admit I am a bit disappointed. These articles seem to be primarily attacks on "rad trads" trying to do the right thing than cogent arguments for dancing based on the Catholic Church's position. Furthermore, I feel compelled to mention that I have spent several years in Afghanistan and find the comparison between "rad-trads" and the Taliban made in poor taste, leading me to believe this is more of an emotion attack than anything else.
Doing a little more digging (aka Googling), I was easily able to find information indicating the Church has long held the position that dancing is morally dangerous. For example, here is an article written in 2020 on the subject (full disclosure, I know nothing about this author but found the article informative): https://amishcatholic.com/2020/05/17/a-florilegium-of-the-saints-on-dancing/. The article quotes Saints Ambrose, Augustine, John Chyrsostom, and many others. How can you simply call everyone of the Saints, Doctors of the Church, and Popes mentioned in this article Jansenists? It seems an unfair characterization. St. Charles Borromeo said this: “Dancing, so dangerous to Christian morals, should be banished entirely by the faithful, as it originates many sins against purity, and causes extravagances, evil deeds, and assassinations.” I can easily see why "Rad Trads" would read the Saints and not want anything to do with dancing.
So, instead of disparaging other Catholics, why don't you try to point out what has changed, if anything, or how these have been taken out of context and twisted by "Jansenists" trying to suck the fun out of life? Catholics flock to this substack because we cherish tradition (sometimes sanity) and want to understand the teachings of the Church and do what's right. Having said this, I don't think these articles do the topic justice and the issue could have been addressed in a much more academic manner.
Thank you for this comment and for the link to the article written in 2020! I respect and love the two priests/shepherd’s to whom this article is about. They only want Heaven for their flock.
Angelia, I am dying of curiosity. To whom are you referring? As far as I know, no living priests provided the food for thoughts expressed by these articles.
At the least, Julian knows because his Monday, Crisis article addressed quite precisely every point Father made in his homily last Sunday. Dr K commented he doesn’t know these shepherds personally. I will not be outing their names publicly. I’m certain I will be accused of being “scrupulous” for not putting their names publicly, so be it.
Sep 12Liked by Dorothy Cummings McLean, Peter Kwasniewski
Delighted to see this post - I first heard about Tradition and Sanity from Mrs. McLean and have loved following stories of her Edinburgh dances. Good dancing of the sort you describe is so good for the mind, body, and spirit!
I'd add that for those who might wish for social dancing that often offers a stronger rhythmic challenge than the usual duple or triple meter, much of folk dancing from Central and Eastern Europe does just that. I recall encountering dances in 5/4, 7/4, and 9/4 in folk dance classes back in the 1970's at Pomona College -- back when the words on the seal of this Congregationalist-founded college were still "Our tribute to Christian civilization."
Great article! I have Parkinson's but you know what? I can hand dance while swaying with my walking sticks. It's a best!!! Thank you for putting this together.
A reader sent me this email, which I am now copying below:
<< Our family attends the Mass with ICKSP in Chicago, currently exiled to IN. A good friend forwarded me your article on dancing, Thank you so much for writing this article! We have been hosting monthly dances alternating between young adults (open to older adults) and teens for the last 2.5 years. They have grown so much! We are hosting our first ball in honor of Christ the King in October. Our family's initiative is called "One Dance at a Time" as we are dedicated to the restoration of Catholic Culture, one dance at a time.
We recently encountered some objections from some faithful Catholics after a talk by a Franciscan priest regarding whether Catholics should swing dance went viral and many took his message to mean that all dancing was off the table. This article is so timely!
Thank you for the time you and the other authors took to write this elegant article. Sadly some people will hold tight to their erroneous beliefs, despite clear evidence to the contrary. If the devil can't take us out on the left he'll try the right. This is but a microcosm of the effects of radical traditionalism....the corruption of something truly beautiful. We see it in the lack of charity shown many women to those who they believe don't quite fit the mold of their jansenist version of modesty, I've seen it do more harm than good and ruin the faith of many young women, turning them away from the Church altogether. Same with the men who have this distorted notion that they all need to be drinking hard liquour and smoking cigars in order to be men. There's nothing wrong with either in moderation but I and many have seen how family gathering quickly turn into drunken fests and many men falling into alcoholism because well, it's what traditional Catholic men do when they gather.
We have to remember that we walk a fine line, stray but a little....we need to find balance. I won't rant more. There's not much we can do about nay sayers. Keep speaking and teaching truth. Haters will hate, all we can do is pray for their conversion of heart. >>
St. John Vianney said this: “There is not a commandment of God which dancing does not cause men to break… Mothers may indeed say: ‘Oh, I keep an eye on my daughters.’ You keep an eye on their dress; you cannot keep guard over their heart. Go, you wicked parents, go down to hell where the wrath of God awaits you, because of your conduct when you gave free scope to your children; go! It will not be long before they join you, seeing that you have shown them the way so well… Then you will see whether your pastor was right in forbidding those hellish amusements… the dance… is the rope by which the devil drags the greatest number of souls into the abyss of hell.” The following is an excerpt from the priest who wrote the definitive work on the Life of St John Vianney, drawn from the notes used in his canonization: “On certain points M. Vianney may have been less exacting with strangers than with his own people, but as regards dancing he was ever absolutely unyielding… He never wavered. He would not allow anyone to take part in society dances, even in the role of a simple spectator. All his life M. Vianney remained steadfast in his attitude towards dancing… He said to the parents, “You must answer for their souls as you will answer for your own… what I do know is that if your children lose their souls whilst they are as yet under your care, it is to be feared that your lack of watchfulness may be the cause of your own damnation.” (pp. 150-151) St John went so far as to have an altar in honor of St John the Baptist built in his church with the inscription over the altar: ‘his head was the price of a dance.’
So overstated. St. John Vianney was right on this question inasmuch as he was targeting bad local practice. He is wrong if taken to be speaking of any and all dancing universally. I find it astonishing that Catholics will latch on to sayings of one saint and use them practically like the Bible against the witness of innumerable others over many centuries of Christendom.
This article is not exactly intellectually honest, and that's if only because:
1. Traditionally Catholic criticism of extramarital male-female dancing is not about promoting the thesis that such dances are intrinsically evil acts. The point of such criticism is that they are usually, or at least very often, an near occasion for sin.
(2) Citing biblical statements approving is dancing is, to say the least, meaningless in the context of dances prevalent in our cultural circle. After all, the ancient Jews did not practice male-female dances, but the dances practiced by them were of a “separate-gender” nature. So such dances are spoken of in a positive and favorable way in the Scriptures.
3 The authors of this text omitted in silence the statement of St. Francis de Sales, who, with regard to male-female dances that look much more modest and decent than, for example, the waltz praised in the article, spoke skeptically and with distance towards them (he considered them permitted, but at the same time advised against them).
Ps. I would also add that it is a rather inelegant ploy on the part of the editors to write about traditionally Catholic opponents of extramarital male-female dancing using quotation marks next to the word “traditionalist.” Such a ploy might suggest that this criticism of extramarital male-female dancing is some kind of doctrinal error rejected by the Church's Magisterium, which Catholics have no right to share: which is clearly not the case.
We set out to write short articles, not a book, so of course we did not refer to every possible statement for or against dancing.
Comments via a friend:
Fr. Antonio Royo Marin (a 20th century Spanish Dominican moral theologian who is very well respected both as a moral theologian and as a spiritual theologian) maintains in his work, Teologia Moral para Seglares [vol. 1, pp. 502-503] (this work is only available in Spanish, alas!), that a dance may be attended if the following four conditions are met: 1) it is held at a reputable place which is private in nature (e.g., at a home, church hall, wedding reception venue, etc.) [Note: I think Fr. R-M adds the condition of "private" here so as to put restrictions on who attends, etc. It seems that there might be some room here to say that if one knows that a certain reputable public dance hall or other such place is normally attended by decent folks who dress well and so forth, then one may go to a dance at such a venue], 2) it is attended by morally decent people, 3) the dances themselves are morally decent (e.g., the dance moves are not suggestive, provocative, etc.), and 4) those who attend the dance have a good intention for attending (e.g., they attend seeking to have a morally upright time, to possibly find a potential spouse, etc.).
After enumerating these conditions, Fr. R-M interesting says that if someone is excessively rigorous in condemning dancing, he causes much more harm than good since such an individual runs the risk of deforming people's consciences (e.g., making them think that they are sinning mortally by attending an upright dance when in fact they are not sinning at all), or even occasioning turning someone off to Catholicism. Lastly, like Fr. Prummer, Fr. R-M says that even a good dance may be a proximate occasion of sin for certain folks. If that is so, then such individuals are obliged not to attend. However, this doesn't mean that other people for whom such a dance is only a remote occasion of sin or no occasion of sin at all shouldn't attend.
Good dance is very important, not only for the moral formation of the young, but for people of all ages, because it both embodies and communicates a proper understanding of how men and women should virtuously interact with one another. So, through participating in good dance, the dancers themselves (assuming they have an upright intention) as well as those who simply watch and enjoy the dance engage in a human activity which is both virtuous and intrinsically delightful.
I put "traditionalist" in quotation marks because the opinion against dancing is NOT a view shared by all traditional Catholics; it is, in fact, a minority view, even if some saints held it; just as some saints have held other absurd propositions over the centuries.
Why, when quoting Fr. Antonio Royo Marin, did you omit the part of his statement that does not fit very well with the thesis you are promoting, namely?:
"I. IN GENERAL, modern dances based on dancing while hugging each other should be discouraged, because of the great dangers they entail, especially for young people of both sexes.
But they could be tolerated sometimes if the following four conditions are met, which are quite difficult in practice: (...)"
I made it clear in my article - did you read it carefully? - that I disapprove of all dancing that is too sensual.
The difference between me and you is that you condemn all dancing, whereas I approve of some of it, as most of Christendom has done, and as all sane Catholics do today.
Because those omitted statements of Fr Marin and St Francis de Sales (who is not an uptight French cleric) would not support the main narrative of Dr Kwasniewski's article.
Dear Dr Peter Kwasniewski, I’m sorry you find my arguments in the post on your Facebook wall too sophisticated – I’m not sure what kind of response you are expecting but I was trying to sincerely reply to your article.
Given the social segregation between men and women in Jewish culture I think it’s fair to assume that any dancing at the wedding feast at Cana would also have been sex segregated. At a stretch, perhaps it may have taken place in mixed groups, however I really can’t see members of the opposite sex dancing publicly with each other. I also cannot see Our Lord and Our Lady engaging in such dancing, based on their virtue and modesty, period.
Your outright dismissal of the Saints and clerics (or councils in the case of the Plenary Councils of Baltimore) who condemn dancing is perculiar in my opinion and unlike your usual take on other subjects.
I don’t think that my view is a case of placing more burdens on people than divine law places on them. The world may be sick with isolation but dancing is a problematic solution. It must be recognised that it is not for everyone – it can be a near occasion of sin for many and if dances are not regulated properly they can lead to moral degradation – this needs to be recognised and taught before it is promoted blindly.
Frankly your comment “it's obvious you are not from the West and don't understand how things work over here” is racist! Matchmaking does not imply blindly marrying without getting to know each other. I was simply suggesting that like dancing may be used to introduce men and women to each other, there are other forms of social matchmaking like organising picnics or dinners which do not present the same dangers as dancing.
Please find YouTube clips with men and women dressed more modestly dancing, it will be easier to take this article seriously. You are directly attacking two of our Shepherd’s and it’s disheartening. While I realize all names have been removed, those of us here know exactly to whom you are speaking of. These are two very good and holy priests and I trust them. God entrusted them as our shepherd’s and I choose to trust that they have our souls in their utmost care and concern. They want us in Heaven!!
Please request a meeting with them and speak about this in private, I respectfully ask you to stop attacking our shepherd’s!!
There are three of us, and we live on different continents, so to whom are you directing your comment? I did not write with any particular priests in mind, and you cannot be a parishioner of, for example, Abbé Hulot.
I am not good friends with the priests who are placing these burdens on people's consciences. However, get this straight right now: holiness does not equal knowledge or wisdom, just as, at times, knowledge and wisdom can be found among those who are not Christian (e.g., the philosophers Plato and Aristotle), or among Christians who are not Catholic (e.g., CS Lewis). So the fact that a few holy priests think dancing is evil does not make it evil or them right. The vast majority of Christians over the centuries have approved of dancing and this has FAR MORE weight in the balance. Finally, formal dancing is good because it is proper to human nature and is the natural response to music. All that we must do is get rid of bad music and bad (lascivious or crude or ugly) dancing. Once we have done this, there can be no serious objections to controlled ballroom dancing.
Thank you for pointing out your “Get this straight right now” attitude! You helped to highlight your lack of knowledge, virtue, and charity! In fact you only capitalized on the fact you are horribly worldly, who easily submits to his passions.
I can only assume you had some “hardcore dancers” who have been teaching dance for years and years whined and cried to you about how some good priest spoke out against dancing!
About “get this straight right now …” I don’t see where I defined “holiness” to equal knowledge and wisdom. When is it suitable to use “holy”? Aren’t all faithful Catholic’s asking God’s grace to lead a holy life? Asking God to infuse us with the gifts of knowledge and wisdom? If God were to offer me either “holiness” OR knowledge and wisdom, I’d ask for holiness. Are you trying to say God infused you with full knowledge and wisdom to write this article in order to dispute the priests placing “these burdens on people’s consciences”? Help me understand why my comment was such a trigger for you.
Additionally, I see where you “liked” the commenter calling me scrupulous for my modesty in dress comment. Have you written any articles countering either “Dressing with Dignity” by Colleen Hammond or “The Marylike Modesty Handbook” by Fr. Bernard Kunkel? What am I to make of Deuteronomy 22:5? What are we to understand about Our Lady of Fatima stressing Modesty in Dress? Are you encouraging us not to take seriously what she said?
I don't feel you know my work well at all - nor do I blame you for that. I have written extensively about modesty and I would likely agree with a lot of what you think about that subject. My other point was that just having "holy priests" does not guarantee that they give sound advice on disputed or disputable matters. There are many cases of bad advice in the area of morals that traditionalist priests have given. Nor should this be surprising.
I have read some of your articles on modesty in dress for men, never on women. If in fact you likely believe the same as me on the matter, I’m surprised you find the 3 YouTube clips to be a display of modesty in dress. Perhaps if the YouTube clips had modestly dressed women, the arguments made would be more believable and defendable. I was raised to have a higher respect for priests (especially priests that are my shepherd’s) than an author/professor. Therefore, if my shepherd is putting this burden on my conscience, I’m going to take it very serious. Our Fraternity priests (at least here locally) are men of God and are leading us toward Heaven. Is it easy? No! Is it supposed to be easy? No!
I’d prefer to be on the more conservative side of this topic than the latter. There is much we must give up to serve God. I trust God gave us these shepherd’s and I trust these shepherd’s only want Heaven for their flock. I will follow the shepherd’s God gave us.
I 1000% agree with Angelia. The priests being subversively addressed are excellent shepherds and I'd be willing to bet that they haven't been approached by the authors (or likely anyone!) and engaged in dialogue by those who disagree with them.
I also believe that the authors did not provide an article or opinions that match the standards of the well reasoned work typically published by the T&S crew - a thing very difficult for me to see. Others have given great evidence of this in many responses on this page and on Facebook, so I will leave it to them in an effort to avoid redundancy.
I will add this: the enemy touched on a nerve and is having a heyday diabolically distracting us Trads as he cuts us down the middle on such a ridiculous issue. I had no dog in the fight but began to wade in when I felt these good priests were being targeted for trying to shepherd their flock to the best of their ability. Now my opinion has been formed on the issue, and I'm chosing to side with the 'uptight' French Saints who have led us well on every issue they spoke of. That said, as someone who is a confessed sinner, someone who let pride lead them down many dangerous paths in their past, I can recognize the difficulty in acknowledging that one's actions were wrong. I believe this would be ten times harder for honest and well meaning Catholics to do, especially if they truly love the thing they are being told the Church -which they love and live for- has historically viewed negatively. That's a hard pill to swallow. The reactions I'm seeing within the Traditional Catholic community remind me of my own, when I needed to accept that my version of reality didn't match up with the Church's. I write these words in charity because I think they truly have validity in this situation, and I pray that they are received with charity. The enemy wants us divided and will do it however he can, especially Traditionalists - if we are too busy infighting then no one is available to point out that The Church is burning down around us.
You are mistaken if you think the majority view of Catholics throughout the centuries has been negative on dancing. The harsh words of a fairly small number of saints do not add up to solemn Magisterium. And it can be sinful to place more burdens on people than the divine law places on them. It certainly promotes scrupulosity.
I am allowing your comment to stand here, but I do not believe it is fair to the arguments presented in the articles above.
As far as responses are concerned, in my opinion the supportive comments have greatly outweight (and outmaneuvered) the negative ones. E.g.:
Some comments over at Facebook when I posted this article:
"I notice this so much in my work with young people and homeschooling families and it drives me nuts. This whole thing is kind of an example of traditionalist tendency to overcompensate – they see the pendulum has swung too far in one direction, so they swing it too far in the other in reaction."
"My husband and I are vintage ballroom dancers (dances of roughly the 1820s through 1940s, so like those in the article's videos, including being dressed in period style). We've even taken classes with Richard Powers, the gentleman who created that amazing dance program at Stanford. The people I've met through dancing are some of the nicest and most decent I've ever met, and while you're expected to change partners throughout the evening, there is no hint of lasciviousness. The stories of impropriety are outnumbered vastly by wonderful takes of people finding their life partners through dancing. For at least a century, chaperoned couple dances were the primary way for young people to get to know one another. Social dancing should be reinstated in our towns today, I firmly believe, for all the reasons stated in the article."
"St. John Vianney's denunciations of dancing were motivated by occasions that generally ended up in fornication, that he did not spell this out due to pudeur (forget the English word), and that this was understood by the audience that he was speaking to."
"I have never once run into a Catholic who thinks dancing inappropriate. I'm curious where these pockets of people are speaking out against it. I spent many happy Friday evenings during my college years dancing with my Catholic friends at our local contra dance - my absolute favorite style of dance. I still manage to drag my husband out to it with me every couple years, when I'm between pregnancies."
"Being real, there's a real cohort of super online male trads, with all of the bad stuff being super online implies, socially awkward, a belief any time interacting with a woman is of the devil (but somehow need to find their tradwife in all that not interacting!) and they've had their faith twisted by all the ugliness that is social media culture. I 100% cannot dance, but dancing is something pretty universal to human culture, including Catholic culture."
"I would love for Catholics to re-take the culture and make dancing wholesome again! A bunch of young people making poor decisions is because they don't even have opportunities to make good ones: we have atomized society and blown up any semblance of courtship rituals, so they can only grasp at what is left behind.
God bless my weird parents who started my school and made all of us kids learn line dancing, and held regular dances for us through middle school. It was great fun, although we rolled our eyes at it at the time."
"I have nephews/nieces who attend Christendom College & are involved with secular Newman Catholic Centers. They have wonderful dances & there isn’t a more wholesome way, save at Mass, to meet quality Catholic people."
Moral theology is not determined by democracy (especially not of the laity). The nobilities and commoners indulged in a lot of debaucheries (uncontrolled social dance parties, monarchs having mistresses) in the old days but that does not mean the Church approved of them--hence the saintly priests of old had to write sermons to preach against dancing in specific because the people at their time thought it was okay when it wasn't.
Saintly priests of old wrote sermons from which we can benefit, but their target audiences were their own flock. In France of 1824, a parish priest might be aware that dances in his own village (where there was alcohol, insufficient chaperonage, nearby woods, and other inducements to sin) were leading to violations of the 6th and 10th commandment. Having noted that the particular dances of that particular time were danced in a particular way (and not being an authority on the history of dance or knowing much about dance or, indeed, sports), he might well assemble an arsenal of texts to argue his thesis that dancing is wrong. His real target is fornication, but he believes dancing leads inexorably to fornication, so he is only doing his priestly duty. However, in 2024, the very opening of a computer can be, for some, an occasion for sexual sin. Souls may be falling like snowflakes into hell, but it's not because they are frequenting chaperoned community dances in which dancers are instructed in traditional dance patterns and they are minding their steps and avoiding bumping into other dancers, smiling or laughing with real merriment--the closest we get, in adult life, to the merriment we felt as infants playing ring-around-the-rosy or the hokey-pokey. The violations of men's and women's souls in 2024 are occurring online, assisted by grotesque evils of pornography. In 2024, priests must warn their own specific flocks not against social ballroom or folk dancing, as it is practiced amongst their flock (if at all), but against abuse of the internet, including so-called "dating" apps like Tinder. In 1824, dancing might have been an excuse--or opportunity--for sin. In 2024, dancing takes the young away from the overwhelmingly obvious occasion for sin of our day: their own computers and smartphones.
And now that I know who you are, I should explain that "Ring around the Rosy" and the "Hokey-Pokey" are the North American names for what are now children's dances very common in what we now call the "Anglosphere."
The comparison between dancing and using a computer as potential occasions of sin oversimplifies the issue by neglecting the distinct ends (Aquinas's) and moral contexts of each activity. Both can indeed be occasions of sin depending on their use, but the nature, purpose, and inherent risks of each are different.
1. Ends of Public/Ballroom Dancing:
Physical Proximity and Interaction: The primary purpose of ballroom or public dancing is social interaction, often involving close physical contact, especially between men and women. The intimacy of the interaction, combined with the potential for flirtation or the arousal of sensual desires, makes this kind of activity a potential occasion for sin, especially in the realm of chastity and modesty.
Entertainment and Social Enjoyment: Dancing is often pursued for entertainment, fun, or the enjoyment of the company of others. While not inherently sinful, the context and intentions behind social dancing can easily lead to temptations, immodesty, or a focus on sensual pleasures. For example, dancing can become an environment for vanity (showing off), flirtation, or excessive attachment to physical pleasure.
Occasion of Sin: Because of the close proximity and bodily interaction, ballroom dancing, particularly in certain settings (e.g., parties, mixed company, and romantic atmospheres), presents a greater risk of being an occasion for sin, particularly related to purity and chastity. The traditional Catholic caution here arises from the fact that physical interactions can easily lead to impure thoughts or desires, and even if the act itself is neutral, the context can quickly become morally problematic.
2. Ends of Using a Computer:
Work and Communication: The primary purpose of a computer is to facilitate various practical tasks, such as work, communication, research, and education. The computer serves as a tool that can be used for a wide variety of ends, many of which are morally neutral or even good, such as evangelization, studying the faith, or connecting with others.
Entertainment and Information: Like dancing, a computer can also be used for entertainment (movies, games, social media) and accessing information. However, the risk of using a computer as an occasion of sin depends more on how it is used (e.g., accessing immoral content like pornography, wasting time on trivial matters, or engaging in gossip) than the mere act of using the device.
Occasion of Sin: While using a computer can certainly become an occasion of sin (through immoral websites, excessive distraction, etc.), its primary purpose is not inherently tied to physical or sensual interaction. A computer does not necessarily present the same risks to purity or modesty that ballroom dancing does, especially since it is often used in isolation or for practical tasks. The computer, by itself, is morally neutral and its potential for sin comes from its misuse rather than from its inherent nature.
3. Comparing the Two:
Physical Interaction vs. Remote Tool: The key difference between dancing and using a computer lies in the level of physical and sensual interaction. Ballroom dancing, especially with its emphasis on physical closeness, can more directly incite impure thoughts or desires, making it a more immediate occasion of sin in the realm of chastity. On the other hand, a computer is primarily a tool for tasks or communication, with its moral dangers being more indirect and dependent on how the user chooses to engage with it.
Social Setting vs. Personal Use: Public dancing occurs in a social setting, where one’s interactions with others, especially the opposite sex, can create temptations or situations where sin becomes more likely. A computer, however, is more often used in private or for utilitarian purposes, which means its moral risk is largely dependent on individual choice rather than inherent to the activity.
4. Moral Context and Intentions:
Dancing and Intentions: Ballroom dancing, especially when done for entertainment or socializing, carries risks tied to the intentions of the participants. If the dance is pursued with intentions that involve vanity, flirtation, or seeking romantic or sensual pleasure, it can easily become an occasion of sin. Traditional Catholic moral theology would emphasize avoiding situations where one’s purity or modesty might be compromised.
Using a Computer and Intentions: The moral use of a computer depends almost entirely on the user’s intentions and actions. Using it for work, education, or even legitimate entertainment can be morally good or neutral. However, it can also be used for immoral ends, like engaging in pornography or wasting time in a manner that neglects one’s duties. The context is more flexible and less inherently tied to physical or emotional interactions.
5. The Traditional Catholic View on Occasions of Sin:
Close Physical Contact and Temptation: From a traditional Catholic perspective, the close physical contact involved in ballroom dancing makes it more likely to lead to impure thoughts, desires, or actions. This type of physical interaction, particularly between unmarried men and women, has the potential to stir up sensual temptations, making it a direct occasion of sin.
Indirect Temptation in Technology: While a computer can certainly be used to sin, the temptation comes from how it is used rather than the nature of the tool itself. A computer does not inherently involve the same kind of physical or emotional intimacy that dancing does, making it a more indirect occasion of sin.
You need to get to some more social ballroom dances and see for yourself how they actually are. Your description resembles nothing that I or my wide circle of friends have experienced in this regard. Moreover, and I am sorry to say it, if someone viewed a dance like the swing or the waltz as a near occasion of sin, it would indicate a warped mind, as most social dances simply ARE NOT of that nature. As was already admitted in the original post, if something can be an occasion of sin for a particular person, he or she should avoid it; but that is by no means an excuse to apply a total ban to everyone, everywhere.
Immodestly dressed? Do you mean young ladies in slacks, or the few college women wearing strapless evening gowns? I feel this level of scrupulosity is on a par with wanting to ban dancing altogether.
Angelia, I agree regarding modest dressing. Most of the times, even in dances organised by well-intentioned Catholic laity or chaplaincies, the female participants don't necessarily come in very modest dresses, which then lead to occasions of temptations and/or scandals for these "controlled" Catholic social dances.
By the way, those conservative and traditional Catholics who praise extramarital male-female dancing should at least honestly admit that:
1. they are thus speaking against the basically unanimous teaching of the saints and the teaching of most of the “preconciliar” theologians who have spoken on the subject.
2. they are speaking against the declarations of some local councils.
3. they assume that since “the saints can be wrong,” that in the matter of male-female dancing they themselves - not being, at least for the time being, proclaimed as saints - are not wrong, whereas many saints have erred in this matter.
This would at least be an intellectually honest approach to the matter instead of giving the false impression that the dislike of male-female dancing was just some “incident” in the history of Catholic teaching.
And that, extramarital male-female dancing can easily become a near occasion for sin can be demonstrated on the basis of not only the teachings of saints, theologians and local councils, but it can also be demonstrated on the basis of common sense, since such dances usually cross both cultural and natural boundaries of closeness, confidentiality and modesty between persons of the opposite sex.
A GENERAL COMMENT ABOUT THE COMMENTS
It is almost a cause of despair to see how poorly people read nowadays. Perhaps the naysayers here simply did not attend carefully enough to the original articles.
1. We made it absolutely clear that we exclude many forms of dancing, either because they are formless, graceless, and crass (freeform 'dancing' in nightclubs, etc.), or because they are too sensual (tango, slow dancing where a couple is pressed up against each other). Likewise I made it clear that I am referring to formal social ballroom dancing and country dancing or contra dancing. In fact, I even admitted a preference for group dances over couple dances.
2. I also made it sufficiently clear that I am praising dances that are well-regulated as to the music and types of dances chosen, and that do involve a certain level of chaperoning. The kids are not being thrown into each other's arms for necking. Good heavens, has any of the objectors here actually BEEN to the kind of dance I'm describing - the kind shown in the pictures? Have they danced an English country dance, or a Virginial Reel, or learned the waltz (as it is typically done nowadays, which is not a body-to-body hug), or the swing? I highly doubt it, because if they had, they would see how quickly their arguments melt away.
3. Julian's article argued directly against the claim that any contact between unmarried persons of opposite sexes is a near occasion of sin and therefore immoral -- a position that absolutely cannot be defended in moral theology. This position leads to absurdities and therefore is not compatible with Catholicism that prizes faith and reason.
4. The situation of our young people in 2024 is much different, and much worse, than it was in earlier times. They do not have many healthy opportunities for morally upright in-person mingling, as modernity has atomized and fragmented our societies (our "villages," as it were). They are stuck on the internet, working jobs with long hours, and maybe, if they are lucky, seeing their friends at a Sunday TLM. The argument here very much depends on seeing that dancing has a social context and that such contexts can and do change over time. Applying like a simplistic template what St John Chrysostom said in the fourth century or what St John Vianney said in Ars (see Mary Reed Newland description above) to a social ballroom dance in 2024 is a glaring violation of how moral argumentation should be made.
5. Finally, if someone is inflamed with lust by the mere sight, let alone arm's-length touch, of a lady, or by the holding of her hand as part of a group dance, then I believe he should schedule an appointment with a psychiatrist, as he has a lot of work to do to heal a diseased psyche. If there is someone who finds even a well-regulated dance an occasion of sin, he should not attend it; but that says more about him than it does about dancing as a healthy recreation.
A post defending dancing with a clip from Pride and Prejudice—simply amazing. Thank you, all three of you, for this wonderful piece!
This article is so very timely as many Traditional Catholic "Society" communities are isolated into what appear to be joyless martyrdoms stripped of all unsanctioned activities, recreational or otherwise. It's unfathomable to me that kids are being raised in what look from the outside like cloistered, ascetic religious orders. I know of no precedent in Catholic history where such arrangements have resulted in a flourishing of the Faith. The records we have of such communities tell us they go extinct in a single generation.
Well, it would seem you really stepped into a hornets nest with this post :-)
FWIW, I find myself squarely on your (Peter, Julian & Dorothy's) side.
Full disclosure, I have danced* and enjoyed it for many decades, ball room, country 'pattern" dances* and some square dancing* - including some of the Ceilidh dances* referred to in Dorothy's web site. Most of it was learned in my 'later' years. Hence I am very 'biased'.
Dancing* from an early age, particularly for country dances* aside from ballroom dancing*, will benefit even people with two 'left feet' - is that 'two right feet' for southpaws??. The time spent learning the steps for the sometimes very intricate patterns will take effort and occupy their minds and time with better things than leaving the alone and 'bored'. Nor does one need the perfect floors essential for ballroom dancing*.
As for your critics, I do see and accept some of their points regarding potential dangers to purity etc and those definitely pose a problem, particularly in this day and age.
But, which parent would refuse to teach or have their children taught how to drive 'properly'?
Well, it is considered essential & important, will most likely be the 'reason' given. And, even when driving is well taught, are there not dangers associated when your youngsters 'borrow the car'??
But I would argue that a total ban on dancing* is neither appropriate nor effective, in fact I see it as harmful. Harmful, because it avoids addressing and discussing in a controlled and safe environment, topics and issues which are essential for your children and young adults to understand and incorporate into their lives. At least, if your serious about their salvation, again IMO.
But IMNSHO, there is more to this.
My first reaction after reading some of the comments was: "all of this criticism about dangers inherent in dancing* (& purity) is posted on the 'net". Are there not nearly equivalent (and as dangerous) aspects present as part of using the internet, watching TV or movies or even going out into the public square - shopping malls, grocery stores?? I certainly find all of that very challenging.
Can I assume that your critics have mastered all of those issues to the point where they feel justified in engaging in those 'activities' without the same qualifications about the inherent dangers?. Or are all of these folks home-bound hermits, have never been to a pub or movie theater, shopping mall or beach? Obviously, they do feel justified in facing these dangers on their daily lives, including those inherent in the use of the 'net.
Of course, the ready objection to my 'objection', at least the use of the internet, shopping (for clothes and groceries), et al. is: those activities are 'essential in today's world'. Perhaps they are, but people lived well enough before malls and the internet and we could go back, even individually. So they are not 'that essential'.
Again in, IMNSHO, there is a much more important aspect to "dancing"*: training our young people to be able to handle the dangers to purity in an appropriate, supervised, acceptable and interesting - to the young folk - way.
With the current trends in public schools, leading some parents to home schooling, this point seems to have grown in importance because for those children, there is so much less opportunity to interact with others of both the same as well as the opposite sex., under supervision and in an appropriate and non-threatening way.
Along with the intricacies of the dance, there will be ample time to 'teach' them by example and instructions how to treat & respect others. Where else will these 'children' get appropriate and supervised instruction on this topic. Where else will they get a chance to learn how to apply the principles and admonitions regarding purity?
And, at least in my books, those skills and habits are way more essential than driving, shopping, using the internet or any other skill.
A second aspect I consider equally important. Your young adults are most likely expected to marry and raise their own children. If they don't have the skill to give and receive the respect from their peers or partners, if they don't even know how to look for and evaluate this crucial prerequisite trait in a life partner, where do you expect them to learn that skill. IMO, you will have failed them miserably.
* always assuming good care to observe propriety and decency, decorum is preserved.
This is the only way I could think of to have the string 'dance' stand out in order to draw attention to the meaning and qualification I insist on attaching to my use of the string and avoid the needless arguments about the intended meaning.
Thank you, Arnold. I agree completely with your comments here.
I think the need for this article is well demonstrated by some of the comments. Leaving aside the theology here, human nature comes into play. There are myriad examples of activities being banned which generated a counter - reaction, sometimes extreme. Prohibition, the banning of Christmas under the Puritans, banning or burning books, and more recently the banning of physical contact during covid-tide just being a few that spring to mind.
As Catholics, we really don't need the Fun Police. If people can't have natural enjoyment in life, they will not remain Catholics. Nuns and monks have a laugh and a joke in recreations ( and have even been known to play party games), and Jesus certainly went to a few parties himself. Catholic dancing? I'm all for it!
Wonderful three articles in one! As someone from Europe living in America I must say I miss the opportunity to attend dances like the ones Dorothy organizes in Edinburgh or the balls in Vienna. Good music and modest dress give young people the opportunity to socialize and not be awkward with eachother -like our current teenages who have most of them a totally unhealthy relationship with the opposite sex. By calling all dancing sin/immoral we are robbing ourselves of a healthy and joyful exercise for mind and soul.
So well said! Thank you.
I may have to email Ms Dorothy to ask for recommendations on replicating what she is doing here in sunny Florida ☺
Please do! She loves to help out.
🙏🏻☺
Yes, I do! In fact, my new website is for that very thing! Send an email to info@tradcathsocialdancing.co.uk. And if you like, read the "Origin" story on http://www.tradcathsocialdancing.co.uk .
Will do!
I've been a huge fun of this substack for a while now, but must admit I am a bit disappointed. These articles seem to be primarily attacks on "rad trads" trying to do the right thing than cogent arguments for dancing based on the Catholic Church's position. Furthermore, I feel compelled to mention that I have spent several years in Afghanistan and find the comparison between "rad-trads" and the Taliban made in poor taste, leading me to believe this is more of an emotion attack than anything else.
Doing a little more digging (aka Googling), I was easily able to find information indicating the Church has long held the position that dancing is morally dangerous. For example, here is an article written in 2020 on the subject (full disclosure, I know nothing about this author but found the article informative): https://amishcatholic.com/2020/05/17/a-florilegium-of-the-saints-on-dancing/. The article quotes Saints Ambrose, Augustine, John Chyrsostom, and many others. How can you simply call everyone of the Saints, Doctors of the Church, and Popes mentioned in this article Jansenists? It seems an unfair characterization. St. Charles Borromeo said this: “Dancing, so dangerous to Christian morals, should be banished entirely by the faithful, as it originates many sins against purity, and causes extravagances, evil deeds, and assassinations.” I can easily see why "Rad Trads" would read the Saints and not want anything to do with dancing.
So, instead of disparaging other Catholics, why don't you try to point out what has changed, if anything, or how these have been taken out of context and twisted by "Jansenists" trying to suck the fun out of life? Catholics flock to this substack because we cherish tradition (sometimes sanity) and want to understand the teachings of the Church and do what's right. Having said this, I don't think these articles do the topic justice and the issue could have been addressed in a much more academic manner.
Thank you for this comment and for the link to the article written in 2020! I respect and love the two priests/shepherd’s to whom this article is about. They only want Heaven for their flock.
Angelia, I am dying of curiosity. To whom are you referring? As far as I know, no living priests provided the food for thoughts expressed by these articles.
At the least, Julian knows because his Monday, Crisis article addressed quite precisely every point Father made in his homily last Sunday. Dr K commented he doesn’t know these shepherds personally. I will not be outing their names publicly. I’m certain I will be accused of being “scrupulous” for not putting their names publicly, so be it.
Dorothy does not know the priests. I do know them to some degree and we mutually respect one another, although we disagree on this question.
Delighted to see this post - I first heard about Tradition and Sanity from Mrs. McLean and have loved following stories of her Edinburgh dances. Good dancing of the sort you describe is so good for the mind, body, and spirit!
I'd add that for those who might wish for social dancing that often offers a stronger rhythmic challenge than the usual duple or triple meter, much of folk dancing from Central and Eastern Europe does just that. I recall encountering dances in 5/4, 7/4, and 9/4 in folk dance classes back in the 1970's at Pomona College -- back when the words on the seal of this Congregationalist-founded college were still "Our tribute to Christian civilization."
Great article! I have Parkinson's but you know what? I can hand dance while swaying with my walking sticks. It's a best!!! Thank you for putting this together.
A reader sent me this email, which I am now copying below:
<< Our family attends the Mass with ICKSP in Chicago, currently exiled to IN. A good friend forwarded me your article on dancing, Thank you so much for writing this article! We have been hosting monthly dances alternating between young adults (open to older adults) and teens for the last 2.5 years. They have grown so much! We are hosting our first ball in honor of Christ the King in October. Our family's initiative is called "One Dance at a Time" as we are dedicated to the restoration of Catholic Culture, one dance at a time.
We recently encountered some objections from some faithful Catholics after a talk by a Franciscan priest regarding whether Catholics should swing dance went viral and many took his message to mean that all dancing was off the table. This article is so timely!
Thank you for the time you and the other authors took to write this elegant article. Sadly some people will hold tight to their erroneous beliefs, despite clear evidence to the contrary. If the devil can't take us out on the left he'll try the right. This is but a microcosm of the effects of radical traditionalism....the corruption of something truly beautiful. We see it in the lack of charity shown many women to those who they believe don't quite fit the mold of their jansenist version of modesty, I've seen it do more harm than good and ruin the faith of many young women, turning them away from the Church altogether. Same with the men who have this distorted notion that they all need to be drinking hard liquour and smoking cigars in order to be men. There's nothing wrong with either in moderation but I and many have seen how family gathering quickly turn into drunken fests and many men falling into alcoholism because well, it's what traditional Catholic men do when they gather.
We have to remember that we walk a fine line, stray but a little....we need to find balance. I won't rant more. There's not much we can do about nay sayers. Keep speaking and teaching truth. Haters will hate, all we can do is pray for their conversion of heart. >>
St. John Vianney said this: “There is not a commandment of God which dancing does not cause men to break… Mothers may indeed say: ‘Oh, I keep an eye on my daughters.’ You keep an eye on their dress; you cannot keep guard over their heart. Go, you wicked parents, go down to hell where the wrath of God awaits you, because of your conduct when you gave free scope to your children; go! It will not be long before they join you, seeing that you have shown them the way so well… Then you will see whether your pastor was right in forbidding those hellish amusements… the dance… is the rope by which the devil drags the greatest number of souls into the abyss of hell.” The following is an excerpt from the priest who wrote the definitive work on the Life of St John Vianney, drawn from the notes used in his canonization: “On certain points M. Vianney may have been less exacting with strangers than with his own people, but as regards dancing he was ever absolutely unyielding… He never wavered. He would not allow anyone to take part in society dances, even in the role of a simple spectator. All his life M. Vianney remained steadfast in his attitude towards dancing… He said to the parents, “You must answer for their souls as you will answer for your own… what I do know is that if your children lose their souls whilst they are as yet under your care, it is to be feared that your lack of watchfulness may be the cause of your own damnation.” (pp. 150-151) St John went so far as to have an altar in honor of St John the Baptist built in his church with the inscription over the altar: ‘his head was the price of a dance.’
So overstated. St. John Vianney was right on this question inasmuch as he was targeting bad local practice. He is wrong if taken to be speaking of any and all dancing universally. I find it astonishing that Catholics will latch on to sayings of one saint and use them practically like the Bible against the witness of innumerable others over many centuries of Christendom.
This article is not exactly intellectually honest, and that's if only because:
1. Traditionally Catholic criticism of extramarital male-female dancing is not about promoting the thesis that such dances are intrinsically evil acts. The point of such criticism is that they are usually, or at least very often, an near occasion for sin.
(2) Citing biblical statements approving is dancing is, to say the least, meaningless in the context of dances prevalent in our cultural circle. After all, the ancient Jews did not practice male-female dances, but the dances practiced by them were of a “separate-gender” nature. So such dances are spoken of in a positive and favorable way in the Scriptures.
3 The authors of this text omitted in silence the statement of St. Francis de Sales, who, with regard to male-female dances that look much more modest and decent than, for example, the waltz praised in the article, spoke skeptically and with distance towards them (he considered them permitted, but at the same time advised against them).
Ps. I would also add that it is a rather inelegant ploy on the part of the editors to write about traditionally Catholic opponents of extramarital male-female dancing using quotation marks next to the word “traditionalist.” Such a ploy might suggest that this criticism of extramarital male-female dancing is some kind of doctrinal error rejected by the Church's Magisterium, which Catholics have no right to share: which is clearly not the case.
Ps. I apologize for my poor English.
We set out to write short articles, not a book, so of course we did not refer to every possible statement for or against dancing.
Comments via a friend:
Fr. Antonio Royo Marin (a 20th century Spanish Dominican moral theologian who is very well respected both as a moral theologian and as a spiritual theologian) maintains in his work, Teologia Moral para Seglares [vol. 1, pp. 502-503] (this work is only available in Spanish, alas!), that a dance may be attended if the following four conditions are met: 1) it is held at a reputable place which is private in nature (e.g., at a home, church hall, wedding reception venue, etc.) [Note: I think Fr. R-M adds the condition of "private" here so as to put restrictions on who attends, etc. It seems that there might be some room here to say that if one knows that a certain reputable public dance hall or other such place is normally attended by decent folks who dress well and so forth, then one may go to a dance at such a venue], 2) it is attended by morally decent people, 3) the dances themselves are morally decent (e.g., the dance moves are not suggestive, provocative, etc.), and 4) those who attend the dance have a good intention for attending (e.g., they attend seeking to have a morally upright time, to possibly find a potential spouse, etc.).
After enumerating these conditions, Fr. R-M interesting says that if someone is excessively rigorous in condemning dancing, he causes much more harm than good since such an individual runs the risk of deforming people's consciences (e.g., making them think that they are sinning mortally by attending an upright dance when in fact they are not sinning at all), or even occasioning turning someone off to Catholicism. Lastly, like Fr. Prummer, Fr. R-M says that even a good dance may be a proximate occasion of sin for certain folks. If that is so, then such individuals are obliged not to attend. However, this doesn't mean that other people for whom such a dance is only a remote occasion of sin or no occasion of sin at all shouldn't attend.
Good dance is very important, not only for the moral formation of the young, but for people of all ages, because it both embodies and communicates a proper understanding of how men and women should virtuously interact with one another. So, through participating in good dance, the dancers themselves (assuming they have an upright intention) as well as those who simply watch and enjoy the dance engage in a human activity which is both virtuous and intrinsically delightful.
I put "traditionalist" in quotation marks because the opinion against dancing is NOT a view shared by all traditional Catholics; it is, in fact, a minority view, even if some saints held it; just as some saints have held other absurd propositions over the centuries.
Why, when quoting Fr. Antonio Royo Marin, did you omit the part of his statement that does not fit very well with the thesis you are promoting, namely?:
"I. IN GENERAL, modern dances based on dancing while hugging each other should be discouraged, because of the great dangers they entail, especially for young people of both sexes.
But they could be tolerated sometimes if the following four conditions are met, which are quite difficult in practice: (...)"
I made it clear in my article - did you read it carefully? - that I disapprove of all dancing that is too sensual.
The difference between me and you is that you condemn all dancing, whereas I approve of some of it, as most of Christendom has done, and as all sane Catholics do today.
Because those omitted statements of Fr Marin and St Francis de Sales (who is not an uptight French cleric) would not support the main narrative of Dr Kwasniewski's article.
Dear Dr Peter Kwasniewski, I’m sorry you find my arguments in the post on your Facebook wall too sophisticated – I’m not sure what kind of response you are expecting but I was trying to sincerely reply to your article.
Given the social segregation between men and women in Jewish culture I think it’s fair to assume that any dancing at the wedding feast at Cana would also have been sex segregated. At a stretch, perhaps it may have taken place in mixed groups, however I really can’t see members of the opposite sex dancing publicly with each other. I also cannot see Our Lord and Our Lady engaging in such dancing, based on their virtue and modesty, period.
Your outright dismissal of the Saints and clerics (or councils in the case of the Plenary Councils of Baltimore) who condemn dancing is perculiar in my opinion and unlike your usual take on other subjects.
I don’t think that my view is a case of placing more burdens on people than divine law places on them. The world may be sick with isolation but dancing is a problematic solution. It must be recognised that it is not for everyone – it can be a near occasion of sin for many and if dances are not regulated properly they can lead to moral degradation – this needs to be recognised and taught before it is promoted blindly.
Frankly your comment “it's obvious you are not from the West and don't understand how things work over here” is racist! Matchmaking does not imply blindly marrying without getting to know each other. I was simply suggesting that like dancing may be used to introduce men and women to each other, there are other forms of social matchmaking like organising picnics or dinners which do not present the same dangers as dancing.
Great response!
Please find YouTube clips with men and women dressed more modestly dancing, it will be easier to take this article seriously. You are directly attacking two of our Shepherd’s and it’s disheartening. While I realize all names have been removed, those of us here know exactly to whom you are speaking of. These are two very good and holy priests and I trust them. God entrusted them as our shepherd’s and I choose to trust that they have our souls in their utmost care and concern. They want us in Heaven!!
Please request a meeting with them and speak about this in private, I respectfully ask you to stop attacking our shepherd’s!!
There are three of us, and we live on different continents, so to whom are you directing your comment? I did not write with any particular priests in mind, and you cannot be a parishioner of, for example, Abbé Hulot.
I am not good friends with the priests who are placing these burdens on people's consciences. However, get this straight right now: holiness does not equal knowledge or wisdom, just as, at times, knowledge and wisdom can be found among those who are not Christian (e.g., the philosophers Plato and Aristotle), or among Christians who are not Catholic (e.g., CS Lewis). So the fact that a few holy priests think dancing is evil does not make it evil or them right. The vast majority of Christians over the centuries have approved of dancing and this has FAR MORE weight in the balance. Finally, formal dancing is good because it is proper to human nature and is the natural response to music. All that we must do is get rid of bad music and bad (lascivious or crude or ugly) dancing. Once we have done this, there can be no serious objections to controlled ballroom dancing.
Thank you for pointing out your “Get this straight right now” attitude! You helped to highlight your lack of knowledge, virtue, and charity! In fact you only capitalized on the fact you are horribly worldly, who easily submits to his passions.
I can only assume you had some “hardcore dancers” who have been teaching dance for years and years whined and cried to you about how some good priest spoke out against dancing!
About “get this straight right now …” I don’t see where I defined “holiness” to equal knowledge and wisdom. When is it suitable to use “holy”? Aren’t all faithful Catholic’s asking God’s grace to lead a holy life? Asking God to infuse us with the gifts of knowledge and wisdom? If God were to offer me either “holiness” OR knowledge and wisdom, I’d ask for holiness. Are you trying to say God infused you with full knowledge and wisdom to write this article in order to dispute the priests placing “these burdens on people’s consciences”? Help me understand why my comment was such a trigger for you.
Additionally, I see where you “liked” the commenter calling me scrupulous for my modesty in dress comment. Have you written any articles countering either “Dressing with Dignity” by Colleen Hammond or “The Marylike Modesty Handbook” by Fr. Bernard Kunkel? What am I to make of Deuteronomy 22:5? What are we to understand about Our Lady of Fatima stressing Modesty in Dress? Are you encouraging us not to take seriously what she said?
I don't feel you know my work well at all - nor do I blame you for that. I have written extensively about modesty and I would likely agree with a lot of what you think about that subject. My other point was that just having "holy priests" does not guarantee that they give sound advice on disputed or disputable matters. There are many cases of bad advice in the area of morals that traditionalist priests have given. Nor should this be surprising.
I have read some of your articles on modesty in dress for men, never on women. If in fact you likely believe the same as me on the matter, I’m surprised you find the 3 YouTube clips to be a display of modesty in dress. Perhaps if the YouTube clips had modestly dressed women, the arguments made would be more believable and defendable. I was raised to have a higher respect for priests (especially priests that are my shepherd’s) than an author/professor. Therefore, if my shepherd is putting this burden on my conscience, I’m going to take it very serious. Our Fraternity priests (at least here locally) are men of God and are leading us toward Heaven. Is it easy? No! Is it supposed to be easy? No!
I’d prefer to be on the more conservative side of this topic than the latter. There is much we must give up to serve God. I trust God gave us these shepherd’s and I trust these shepherd’s only want Heaven for their flock. I will follow the shepherd’s God gave us.
I 1000% agree with Angelia. The priests being subversively addressed are excellent shepherds and I'd be willing to bet that they haven't been approached by the authors (or likely anyone!) and engaged in dialogue by those who disagree with them.
I also believe that the authors did not provide an article or opinions that match the standards of the well reasoned work typically published by the T&S crew - a thing very difficult for me to see. Others have given great evidence of this in many responses on this page and on Facebook, so I will leave it to them in an effort to avoid redundancy.
I will add this: the enemy touched on a nerve and is having a heyday diabolically distracting us Trads as he cuts us down the middle on such a ridiculous issue. I had no dog in the fight but began to wade in when I felt these good priests were being targeted for trying to shepherd their flock to the best of their ability. Now my opinion has been formed on the issue, and I'm chosing to side with the 'uptight' French Saints who have led us well on every issue they spoke of. That said, as someone who is a confessed sinner, someone who let pride lead them down many dangerous paths in their past, I can recognize the difficulty in acknowledging that one's actions were wrong. I believe this would be ten times harder for honest and well meaning Catholics to do, especially if they truly love the thing they are being told the Church -which they love and live for- has historically viewed negatively. That's a hard pill to swallow. The reactions I'm seeing within the Traditional Catholic community remind me of my own, when I needed to accept that my version of reality didn't match up with the Church's. I write these words in charity because I think they truly have validity in this situation, and I pray that they are received with charity. The enemy wants us divided and will do it however he can, especially Traditionalists - if we are too busy infighting then no one is available to point out that The Church is burning down around us.
You are mistaken if you think the majority view of Catholics throughout the centuries has been negative on dancing. The harsh words of a fairly small number of saints do not add up to solemn Magisterium. And it can be sinful to place more burdens on people than the divine law places on them. It certainly promotes scrupulosity.
I am allowing your comment to stand here, but I do not believe it is fair to the arguments presented in the articles above.
As far as responses are concerned, in my opinion the supportive comments have greatly outweight (and outmaneuvered) the negative ones. E.g.:
Some comments over at Facebook when I posted this article:
"I notice this so much in my work with young people and homeschooling families and it drives me nuts. This whole thing is kind of an example of traditionalist tendency to overcompensate – they see the pendulum has swung too far in one direction, so they swing it too far in the other in reaction."
"My husband and I are vintage ballroom dancers (dances of roughly the 1820s through 1940s, so like those in the article's videos, including being dressed in period style). We've even taken classes with Richard Powers, the gentleman who created that amazing dance program at Stanford. The people I've met through dancing are some of the nicest and most decent I've ever met, and while you're expected to change partners throughout the evening, there is no hint of lasciviousness. The stories of impropriety are outnumbered vastly by wonderful takes of people finding their life partners through dancing. For at least a century, chaperoned couple dances were the primary way for young people to get to know one another. Social dancing should be reinstated in our towns today, I firmly believe, for all the reasons stated in the article."
"St. John Vianney's denunciations of dancing were motivated by occasions that generally ended up in fornication, that he did not spell this out due to pudeur (forget the English word), and that this was understood by the audience that he was speaking to."
"I have never once run into a Catholic who thinks dancing inappropriate. I'm curious where these pockets of people are speaking out against it. I spent many happy Friday evenings during my college years dancing with my Catholic friends at our local contra dance - my absolute favorite style of dance. I still manage to drag my husband out to it with me every couple years, when I'm between pregnancies."
"Being real, there's a real cohort of super online male trads, with all of the bad stuff being super online implies, socially awkward, a belief any time interacting with a woman is of the devil (but somehow need to find their tradwife in all that not interacting!) and they've had their faith twisted by all the ugliness that is social media culture. I 100% cannot dance, but dancing is something pretty universal to human culture, including Catholic culture."
"I would love for Catholics to re-take the culture and make dancing wholesome again! A bunch of young people making poor decisions is because they don't even have opportunities to make good ones: we have atomized society and blown up any semblance of courtship rituals, so they can only grasp at what is left behind.
God bless my weird parents who started my school and made all of us kids learn line dancing, and held regular dances for us through middle school. It was great fun, although we rolled our eyes at it at the time."
"I have nephews/nieces who attend Christendom College & are involved with secular Newman Catholic Centers. They have wonderful dances & there isn’t a more wholesome way, save at Mass, to meet quality Catholic people."
Moral theology is not determined by democracy (especially not of the laity). The nobilities and commoners indulged in a lot of debaucheries (uncontrolled social dance parties, monarchs having mistresses) in the old days but that does not mean the Church approved of them--hence the saintly priests of old had to write sermons to preach against dancing in specific because the people at their time thought it was okay when it wasn't.
Saintly priests of old wrote sermons from which we can benefit, but their target audiences were their own flock. In France of 1824, a parish priest might be aware that dances in his own village (where there was alcohol, insufficient chaperonage, nearby woods, and other inducements to sin) were leading to violations of the 6th and 10th commandment. Having noted that the particular dances of that particular time were danced in a particular way (and not being an authority on the history of dance or knowing much about dance or, indeed, sports), he might well assemble an arsenal of texts to argue his thesis that dancing is wrong. His real target is fornication, but he believes dancing leads inexorably to fornication, so he is only doing his priestly duty. However, in 2024, the very opening of a computer can be, for some, an occasion for sexual sin. Souls may be falling like snowflakes into hell, but it's not because they are frequenting chaperoned community dances in which dancers are instructed in traditional dance patterns and they are minding their steps and avoiding bumping into other dancers, smiling or laughing with real merriment--the closest we get, in adult life, to the merriment we felt as infants playing ring-around-the-rosy or the hokey-pokey. The violations of men's and women's souls in 2024 are occurring online, assisted by grotesque evils of pornography. In 2024, priests must warn their own specific flocks not against social ballroom or folk dancing, as it is practiced amongst their flock (if at all), but against abuse of the internet, including so-called "dating" apps like Tinder. In 1824, dancing might have been an excuse--or opportunity--for sin. In 2024, dancing takes the young away from the overwhelmingly obvious occasion for sin of our day: their own computers and smartphones.
Sorry! Can't figure out how to edit. That should be the 6th and *9th* commandments, of course.
And now that I know who you are, I should explain that "Ring around the Rosy" and the "Hokey-Pokey" are the North American names for what are now children's dances very common in what we now call the "Anglosphere."
The comparison between dancing and using a computer as potential occasions of sin oversimplifies the issue by neglecting the distinct ends (Aquinas's) and moral contexts of each activity. Both can indeed be occasions of sin depending on their use, but the nature, purpose, and inherent risks of each are different.
1. Ends of Public/Ballroom Dancing:
Physical Proximity and Interaction: The primary purpose of ballroom or public dancing is social interaction, often involving close physical contact, especially between men and women. The intimacy of the interaction, combined with the potential for flirtation or the arousal of sensual desires, makes this kind of activity a potential occasion for sin, especially in the realm of chastity and modesty.
Entertainment and Social Enjoyment: Dancing is often pursued for entertainment, fun, or the enjoyment of the company of others. While not inherently sinful, the context and intentions behind social dancing can easily lead to temptations, immodesty, or a focus on sensual pleasures. For example, dancing can become an environment for vanity (showing off), flirtation, or excessive attachment to physical pleasure.
Occasion of Sin: Because of the close proximity and bodily interaction, ballroom dancing, particularly in certain settings (e.g., parties, mixed company, and romantic atmospheres), presents a greater risk of being an occasion for sin, particularly related to purity and chastity. The traditional Catholic caution here arises from the fact that physical interactions can easily lead to impure thoughts or desires, and even if the act itself is neutral, the context can quickly become morally problematic.
2. Ends of Using a Computer:
Work and Communication: The primary purpose of a computer is to facilitate various practical tasks, such as work, communication, research, and education. The computer serves as a tool that can be used for a wide variety of ends, many of which are morally neutral or even good, such as evangelization, studying the faith, or connecting with others.
Entertainment and Information: Like dancing, a computer can also be used for entertainment (movies, games, social media) and accessing information. However, the risk of using a computer as an occasion of sin depends more on how it is used (e.g., accessing immoral content like pornography, wasting time on trivial matters, or engaging in gossip) than the mere act of using the device.
Occasion of Sin: While using a computer can certainly become an occasion of sin (through immoral websites, excessive distraction, etc.), its primary purpose is not inherently tied to physical or sensual interaction. A computer does not necessarily present the same risks to purity or modesty that ballroom dancing does, especially since it is often used in isolation or for practical tasks. The computer, by itself, is morally neutral and its potential for sin comes from its misuse rather than from its inherent nature.
3. Comparing the Two:
Physical Interaction vs. Remote Tool: The key difference between dancing and using a computer lies in the level of physical and sensual interaction. Ballroom dancing, especially with its emphasis on physical closeness, can more directly incite impure thoughts or desires, making it a more immediate occasion of sin in the realm of chastity. On the other hand, a computer is primarily a tool for tasks or communication, with its moral dangers being more indirect and dependent on how the user chooses to engage with it.
Social Setting vs. Personal Use: Public dancing occurs in a social setting, where one’s interactions with others, especially the opposite sex, can create temptations or situations where sin becomes more likely. A computer, however, is more often used in private or for utilitarian purposes, which means its moral risk is largely dependent on individual choice rather than inherent to the activity.
4. Moral Context and Intentions:
Dancing and Intentions: Ballroom dancing, especially when done for entertainment or socializing, carries risks tied to the intentions of the participants. If the dance is pursued with intentions that involve vanity, flirtation, or seeking romantic or sensual pleasure, it can easily become an occasion of sin. Traditional Catholic moral theology would emphasize avoiding situations where one’s purity or modesty might be compromised.
Using a Computer and Intentions: The moral use of a computer depends almost entirely on the user’s intentions and actions. Using it for work, education, or even legitimate entertainment can be morally good or neutral. However, it can also be used for immoral ends, like engaging in pornography or wasting time in a manner that neglects one’s duties. The context is more flexible and less inherently tied to physical or emotional interactions.
5. The Traditional Catholic View on Occasions of Sin:
Close Physical Contact and Temptation: From a traditional Catholic perspective, the close physical contact involved in ballroom dancing makes it more likely to lead to impure thoughts, desires, or actions. This type of physical interaction, particularly between unmarried men and women, has the potential to stir up sensual temptations, making it a direct occasion of sin.
Indirect Temptation in Technology: While a computer can certainly be used to sin, the temptation comes from how it is used rather than the nature of the tool itself. A computer does not inherently involve the same kind of physical or emotional intimacy that dancing does, making it a more indirect occasion of sin.
You need to get to some more social ballroom dances and see for yourself how they actually are. Your description resembles nothing that I or my wide circle of friends have experienced in this regard. Moreover, and I am sorry to say it, if someone viewed a dance like the swing or the waltz as a near occasion of sin, it would indicate a warped mind, as most social dances simply ARE NOT of that nature. As was already admitted in the original post, if something can be an occasion of sin for a particular person, he or she should avoid it; but that is by no means an excuse to apply a total ban to everyone, everywhere.
Immodestly dressed? Do you mean young ladies in slacks, or the few college women wearing strapless evening gowns? I feel this level of scrupulosity is on a par with wanting to ban dancing altogether.
Angelia, I agree regarding modest dressing. Most of the times, even in dances organised by well-intentioned Catholic laity or chaplaincies, the female participants don't necessarily come in very modest dresses, which then lead to occasions of temptations and/or scandals for these "controlled" Catholic social dances.
By the way, those conservative and traditional Catholics who praise extramarital male-female dancing should at least honestly admit that:
1. they are thus speaking against the basically unanimous teaching of the saints and the teaching of most of the “preconciliar” theologians who have spoken on the subject.
2. they are speaking against the declarations of some local councils.
3. they assume that since “the saints can be wrong,” that in the matter of male-female dancing they themselves - not being, at least for the time being, proclaimed as saints - are not wrong, whereas many saints have erred in this matter.
This would at least be an intellectually honest approach to the matter instead of giving the false impression that the dislike of male-female dancing was just some “incident” in the history of Catholic teaching.
And that, extramarital male-female dancing can easily become a near occasion for sin can be demonstrated on the basis of not only the teachings of saints, theologians and local councils, but it can also be demonstrated on the basis of common sense, since such dances usually cross both cultural and natural boundaries of closeness, confidentiality and modesty between persons of the opposite sex.