Did JP2 ever address ballroom dancing?

[chevalier]

We’ve had a couple of topics here that I won’t be linking (you can use the Search link at the top of the page if you want ), where we’ve generally agreed on ballroom dancing being okay if kept within chaste and dignified limits. However, the amount of decidedly negative stuff from theologians of old, saints and popes and all included, is troubling me (and it’s not just the Curé of Ars by far). It is especially troubling me now that I’ve signed up for a dancing class. I signed up because the instructor, a hardcore Catholic by the way (like the whole rest of the group, each of them involved in some kind of ministry or apostolate), needed a partner for a tall girl. I’ve recently paid several months in advance and the teacher could feel compelled to return it. I’d also run a high risk of offending or hurting her, along with confronting her with what may well be scruples. Besides, I don’t want to cave in to scruples and Victorian-style cultural influences from gender-segregated times that some theologians may have fallen victim of. Not like I’m going to pretend that most of modern dancing is okay. But anyway, here I’m talking about ballroom dancing (including some Latino stuff that can be somewhat sensual or could be, if I stopped counting aloud and tripping over my feet).

Anyway, I figured that of all theologians and philosophers and saints I could trust JP2 not to be unfairly prejudiced (he had been an actor and a poet, he had solid chaste friendships with women, he wasn’t afraid of music or movement or being seen as less than 100% serious, didn’t insist on the pathos and didn’t mix culture/societal bias or prudeness with morality) on the one side or liberal on the other (he certainly wasn’t liberal on morality). However, I can’t recall anything out of my memory and google doesn’t return any sensible results. Hence, I thought I’d ask here.

So, has anybody come across Bl. John Paul II ever addressing mixed gender (couples) dancing in general or something specific like waltz, or mentioning it without condemining or criticising? Organising or condoning or attending or praising a ball or some such event?

 

[DexUK]

I have no idea whether Bl. John Paul II ever said anything about dancing, but I can tell you that my Catholic parents met through their interest in ballroom dancing and I’d quite like to become a priest, so it can’t be all bad can it?

 

[_L]

What does it matter? There is nothing that can even remotely be considered wrong or worthy of criticism in ballroom dancing. You don’t need a Pope or theologian to tell you exactly what to think on every single aspect of life. Use your reason; ballroom dancing isn’t provacative or immodest like modern forms of “dance” that go on at nightclubs. I’m sure popes and theologians of the past had problems with the saxophone or jazz or whatever, its not a unique aspect of the Church to be critical of then new things in culture, every society and institution does it.

 

[chevalier]

What does it matter? There is nothing that can even remotely be considered wrong or worthy of criticism in ballroom dancing. You don’t need a Pope or theologian to tell you exactly what to think on every single aspect of life. Use your reason; ballroom dancing isn’t provacative or immodest like modern forms of “dance” that go on at nightclubs. I’m sure popes and theologians of the past had problems with the saxophone or jazz or whatever, its not a unique aspect of the Church to be critical of then new things in culture, every society and institution does it.

People can’t find anything wrong with a lot of things that are objectively immoral (including divorce, fornication, contraception). With dancing, that’d basically be the sensuality of it (plus, even simple ballroom dancing does seem to remove a lot of barriers that we would normally observe in daily life, and it does look like roleplaying a story of love or attraction) and we’ve come to accept huge levels of sensuality without questioning (especially on the dancing floor… no woman would throw her arms around the neck of a stranger out in the street and yet that’s normal and expected on dance floor), as a matter of cultural conditioning. It isn’t a horribly off idea to hesitate for a while that we might actually not be right in our judgement.

 

[dixieagle]

People can’t find anything wrong with a lot of things that are objectively immoral (including divorce, fornication, contraception). With dancing, that’d basically be the sensuality of it (plus, even simple ballroom dancing does seem to remove a lot of barriers that we would normally observe in daily life, and it does look like roleplaying a story of love or attraction) and we’ve come to accept huge levels of sensuality without questioning (especially on the dancing floor… no woman would throw her arms around the neck of a stranger out in the street and yet that’s normal and expected on dance floor), as a matter of cultural conditioning. It isn’t a horribly off idea to hesitate for a while that we might actually not be right in our judgement.

You’re being scrupulous. This is not the same as “divorce, fornication contraception” and if you can’t see that, you really need to speak to your priest.

The pope and bishops simply don’t have time (nor the need) to make pronouncements on every aspect of daily life. You can be sure that, were ballroom dancing regarded by the Church as a serious threat to our salvation, you would have heard about it.

Ballroom dancing is a delightful form of exercise and a pleasant and harmless hobby. Apply common sense and you’ll be fine.

Please speak to your priest about this over-thinking and scrupulosity.

 

[CDB1718]

Another vote for this being scruples.

 

[chevalier]

You’re being scrupulous. This is not the same as “divorce, fornication contraception” and if you can’t see that, you really need to speak to your priest.

There is a difference, naturally. I was just giving examples of things that are seen as normal by modern society despite being objectively wrong, even evil. If people can be wrong on a major thing like premarital sex, they can be wrong on a minor thing, like a dance that involves an expression of sensuality (the moves of some of Latino dances, which count as ballroom dances, seem to bring out sexual associations).

The pope and bishops simply don’t have time (nor the need) to make pronouncements on every aspect of daily life. You can be sure that, were ballroom dancing regarded by the Church as a serious threat to our salvation, you would have heard about it.

Open up one of the countless modesty threads on these boards. There will be quotes from bishops, cardinals and popes about rather detailed aspects of dress, including inch counting. If you take any papal encyclical, it digs deep into detail on a lot of issues. Any moral theologian, as a rule, has left a large body of works in which he goes into detail on a lot of things, including things from daily life, and John Paul II wrote a number of works about love and sexuality, so it wouldn’t be an unrealistic expectation that somebody may have come across a passage when reading a book lately. As for popes and bishops, leaving aside the early periods, Waltz was specifically banned by Pope Leo XII, tango also earned a papal condemnation at some point, and the second synode of Baltimore in 19th century basically outlawed dancing altogether and I’m not mentioning priests and professors of moral theology. Anyway, I’m not asking for an infallible pronouncement from the steps of the papal throne about the details of dancing, especially not one issued with me in mind. I’m asking if someone, anyone, while reading a book or encyclical from JP2 lately, or a biography or memoirs of people who knew him etc., came across a passage or mention of the subject.

An example of the rigorist view can be found at the Catholic Encyclopedia:

But, aside from the concomitants — place, late hours, décolleté, escorting, etc. — common to all such entertainments, round dances, although they may possibly be carried on with decorum and modesty, are regarded by moralists as fraught, by their very nature, with the greatest danger to morals. To them perhaps, but unquestionably still more obviously to masked balls, should be applied the warning of the Second Council of Baltimore, against “those fashionable dances, which, as at present carried on, are revolting to every feeling of delicacy and propriety”. Needless to add that decency as well as the oft-repeated decrees of particular and general councils forbid clerics to appear, in any capacity whatever, on public dancing floors.

I’m like: what? late hours? escorting? come on! On the other hand it’s rather clear that sensuality plays a large role in dancing, which needn’t necessarily be good (and is somewhat hard to justify).

At any rate, I didn’t want to cause another debate. I just wanted to ask about a passage or two about the subject from or about JP2. Probably shouldn’t have written anything more than just the question.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

Another vote for this being scruples.

Yep.

You’re being scrupulous. This is not the same as “divorce, fornication contraception” and if you can’t see that, you really need to speak to your priest.

The pope and bishops simply don’t have time (nor the need) to make pronouncements on every aspect of daily life. You can be sure that, were ballroom dancing regarded by the Church as a serious threat to our salvation, you would have heard about it.

Ballroom dancing is a delightful form of exercise and a pleasant and harmless hobby. Apply common sense and you’ll be fine.

Please speak to your priest about this over-thinking and scrupulosity.

Yep, yep.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

There is a difference, naturally. I was just giving examples of things that are seen as normal by modern society despite being objectively wrong, even evil. If people can be wrong on a major thing like premarital sex, they can be wrong on a minor thing, like a dance that involves an expression of sensuality (the moves of some of Latino dances, which count as ballroom dances, seem to bring out sexual associations).

Open up one of the countless modesty threads on these boards. There will be quotes from bishops, cardinals and popes about rather detailed aspects of dress, including inch counting. If you take any papal encyclical, it digs deep into detail on a lot of issues. Any moral theologian, as a rule, has left a large body of works in which he goes into detail on a lot of things, including things from daily life, and John Paul II wrote a number of works about love and sexuality, so it wouldn’t be an unrealistic expectation that somebody may have come across a passage when reading a book lately. ***As for popes and bishops, leaving aside the early periods, Waltz was specifically banned by Pope Leo XII, ***tango also earned a papal condemnation at some point, and the second synode of Baltimore in 19th century basically outlawed dancing altogether and I’m not mentioning priests and professors of moral theology. Anyway, I’m not asking for an infallible pronouncement from the steps of the papal throne about the details of dancing, especially not one issued with me in mind. I’m asking if someone, anyone, while reading a book or encyclical from JP2 lately, or a biography or memoirs of people who knew him etc., came across a passage or mention of the subject.

An example of the rigorist view can be found at the Catholic Encyclopedia:

But, aside from the concomitants — place, late hours, décolleté, escorting, etc. — common to all such entertainments, round dances, although they may possibly be carried on with decorum and modesty, are regarded by moralists as fraught, by their very nature, with the greatest danger to morals. To them perhaps, but unquestionably still more obviously to masked balls, should be applied the warning of the Second Council of Baltimore, against “those fashionable dances, which, as at present carried on, are revolting to every feeling of delicacy and propriety”. Needless to add that decency as well as the oft-repeated decrees of particular and general councils forbid clerics to appear, in any capacity whatever, on public dancing floors.

I’m like: what? late hours? escorting? come on! On the other hand it’s rather clear that sensuality plays a large role in dancing, which needn’t necessarily be good (and is somewhat hard to justify).

At any rate, I didn’t want to cause another debate. I just wanted to ask about a passage or two about the subject from or about JP2. Probably shouldn’t have written anything more than just the question.

So let me come at this from the other angle: assuming the bolded statement above is true, was the papal ban on the waltz ever rescinded? If not, on what basis do we now ignore a papal ban, and what does this say about ***other ***papal bans? (For the record, I don’t believe ballroom dancing is a moral problem, but the “papal ban” assertion got me wondering.)

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

We’ve had a couple of topics here that I won’t be linking (you can use the Search link at the top of the page if you want ), where we’ve generally agreed on ballroom dancing being okay if kept within chaste and dignified limits. However, the amount of decidedly negative stuff from theologians of old, saints and popes and all included, is troubling me (and it’s not just the Curé of Ars by far). It is especially troubling me now that I’ve signed up for a dancing class. I signed up because the instructor, a hardcore Catholic by the way (like the whole rest of the group, each of them involved in some kind of ministry or apostolate), needed a partner for a tall girl. I’ve recently paid several months in advance and the teacher could feel compelled to return it. I’d also run a high risk of offending or hurting her, along with confronting her with what may well be scruples. Besides, I don’t want to cave in to scruples and Victorian-style cultural influences from gender-segregated times that some theologians may have fallen victim of. Not like I’m going to pretend that most of modern dancing is okay. But anyway, here I’m talking about ballroom dancing (including some Latino stuff that can be somewhat sensual or could be, if I stopped counting aloud and tripping over my feet).

Anyway, I figured that of all theologians and philosophers and saints I could trust JP2 not to be unfairly prejudiced (he had been an actor and a poet, he had solid chaste friendships with women, he wasn’t afraid of music or movement or being seen as less than 100% serious, didn’t insist on the pathos and didn’t mix culture/societal bias or prudeness with morality) on the one side or liberal on the other (he certainly wasn’t liberal on morality). However, I can’t recall anything out of my memory and google doesn’t return any sensible results. Hence, I thought I’d ask here.

So, has anybody come across Bl. John Paul II ever addressing mixed gender (couples) dancing in general or something specific like waltz, or mentioning it without condemining or criticising? Organising or condoning or attending or praising a ball or some such event?

The waltz is sensuously indecent with the man wrapping his arm around the woman rather conveniently facilitating him groping her buttocks, the woman pressed against his chest in such a closed position, so shameless in it’s whirling pattern. How can one possibly allow this egregious violation of modest to persist?

:tsktsk:

 

[domandcarols]

The waltz is sensuously indecent with the man wrapping his arm around the woman rather conveniently facilitating him groping her buttocks, the woman pressed against his chest in such a closed position, so shameless in it’s whirling pattern. How can one possibly allow this egregious violation of modest to persist?

:tsktsk:

 

[Baelor]

There is a difference, naturally. I was just giving examples of things that are seen as normal by modern society despite being objectively wrong, even evil. If people can be wrong on a major thing like premarital sex, they can be wrong on a minor thing, like a dance that involves an expression of sensuality (the moves of some of Latino dances, which count as ballroom dances, seem to bring out sexual associations).

The difference is that fornication is inherently sinful. Dancing is not, nor is perceived sensuality within the dance. If it places you in the near occasion of sin because of sexual temptation, then perhaps rethink. But the fact that some moves seem to have suggestive overtones is not relevant.

I would talk to your priest about scruples.

 

[Debora123]

What does it matter? There is nothing that can even remotely be considered wrong or worthy of criticism in ballroom dancing. You don’t need a Pope or theologian to tell you exactly what to think on every single aspect of life. Use your reason; ballroom dancing isn’t provacative or immodest like modern forms of “dance” that go on at nightclubs. I’m sure popes and theologians of the past had problems with the saxophone or jazz or whatever, its not a unique aspect of the Church to be critical of then new things in culture, every society and institution does it.

 

[Debora123]

Another vote for this being scruples.

I +1 this.

 

[Bezant]

I agree that this a case of the scruples, especially after what I’ve seen what some girls do in clubs…

 

[rotlex]

Another vote for this being scruples.

Ditto. Really. I have to ask, without sounding rude, is the original post even serious? If so, and you worry about things such as these, or look to someone to “guide” you in the moral acceptability of something like ballroom dancing, I think you might want to speak with a priest, or other professional in the field.

Sounds very scrupulous to me.

 

[chevalier]

The waltz is sensuously indecent with the man wrapping his arm around the woman rather conveniently facilitating him groping her buttocks, the woman pressed against his chest in such a closed position, so shameless in it’s whirling pattern. How can one possibly allow this egregious violation of modest to persist?

:tsktsk:

Those arguments were made seriously a while ago (minus the part about buttocks). Believe me or not, whirling was a big part of them, though whirling primarily ticked off the secular authorities.

So let me come at this from the other angle: assuming the bolded statement above is true, was the papal ban on the waltz ever rescinded? If not, on what basis do we now ignore a papal ban, and what does this say about ***other ***papal bans? (For the record, I don’t believe ballroom dancing is a moral problem, but the “papal ban” assertion got me wondering.)

I suppose papal statements from even encyclicals or letters apostolic or what they were don’t constitute a “ban” in the strictest sense, the closest to which was a decree from the diocese of Baltimore back in 19th century, which was obviously only ever binding for that diocese but still a clue.

This isn’t a ban but shows the Vatican to have thought in 1975 that However, the same criterion and judgment cannot be applied in the western culture. Here dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses: such dancing, in general, is not pure.

Love isn’t bad (I suppose someone was translating “amor” from Latin). Diversion isn’t bad. Profaneness can be interpreted to mean merely secularity. However, “unbridling of senses” looks pretty negative and “is not pure” seems rather clear. It may not be downright “impure” but it’s enough that it’s “not pure”.

Ditto. Really. I have to ask, without sounding rude, is the original post even serious? If so, and you worry about things such as these, or look to someone to “guide” you in the moral acceptability of something like ballroom dancing, I think you might want to speak with a priest, or other professional in the field.

Sounds very scrupulous to me.

The original post shows clearly I’m not looking for anybody to “guide me”. I’d go to a priest if I needed that. The only thing I wanted from this thread was to ask if someone hasn’t perhaps come across a relevant passage in a work by a theologian that interested me (or in a work about him). And that’s all. That I’ve been dragged into a discussion afterwards is another thing.

As for being scrupulous: I don’t worry about the sexuality of it. At least not in my own case, perhaps either the other person (which is a valid concern and is not merely the other person’s responsibility) or spectators. There’s a reason we don’t generally go to modern dancing clubs where “dirty dancing” is going on, i.e. groping on the floor and sex being had in the toilets or cars: we don’t want to associate with it. Milder dancing, e.g. Latino dancing doesn’t fall there but the moves are sensual and sometimes sexually suggestive. Perhaps more sensual and suggestive than sexual, but still often enough to cause temptation or result in inappropriate attachments, lead to unnecessary superficial romance, and crossing of healthy boundaries. I wanted to consider that perhaps those 19th and even 20th century priests, theologians and hierarchs were right and we, in our modern culture, are perhaps not right in our common belief that the levels of sensuality and suggestiveness and passion shown on dance floors are morally acceptable: e.g. a leg of the male partner between the legs of the female partner (and in a dance the origins of which rely on roleplaying a story about love or passion) is common in all ballroom dancing, knee to knee contact is frequent, holding the shoulder blade or bicep is typical, wrapping an arm around the back or waist of the partner is typical—none of this is accepted outside the dancing floor, especially between strangers, and some of it would be considered sexual if it weren’t happening on the dance floor so we have obviously created a cultural exception for dancing, in which the dance floor justifies a whole lot of things that are normally at least suspicious. So I decided to read up a bit and see if we aren’t perhaps in the wrong in creating this exception (and it’s not like I have the time to go through thousands of pages, I’d rather use the random chance someone out of several hundred active users might’ve come across something lately).

In the previous topics on this subject, you will find me telling other posters it was scruples to wonder about the morality of ballroom or even club dancing (except for the explicitly sexual). Now I wanna explore. But I preferred to do so in private, and for this reason I asked if anyone has come across some passages that would interest me. Sigh. I probably should’ve posted in Popular Media without elaborating on the question.

 

[chevalier]

I agree that this a case of the scruples, especially after what I’ve seen what some girls do in clubs…

What some girls increasingly do in clubs doesn’t lower the standards for everybody else. This is because morality doesn’t have this kind of perceived relaxation as time passes on. Generally, what was wrong before is still wrong now unless we were wrong before or there were external factors before that are no longer the case now.

For example just because fewer people make a big deal of fully acted out adultery any more doesn’t mean that a light-themed emotional affair (or a flirt) is okay to have (or only venial matter).

Therefore, theoretically, just because the way so many (most) people dance it looks like they’re having sex doesn’t mean that all the rest of us can loosen up a little just so long as we keep a healthy difference. In essence, just because many people do something which is clearly, horribly wrong, doesn’t mean we can stop worrying about doing something which is only a little wrong in comparison. And I’m primarily talking about the sensuality of it rather than overt sexuality (since few Catholics in their right minds will claim that “grinding” dances of the current young generation are morally acceptable).

It’s possible that the cross-gender hugging (because how else would one refer to the hold in waltz) was enough to scandalise the clerics in 19th century for cultural reasons (“oh no, that’s an ankle!”). Perhaps the close distance, fast-paced movement and lack of apparent inhibition in Latino dances was enough to scandalise somebody in 20th century without a good need.

On the other hand, one can’t really deny that a lot of dancing steps were probably invented in order to justify some mushy romantic hugging (waltz) and some flirtatious, sensual interaction (Latino dances). We don’t really have that kind of mindset nowadays if we look at it like some quaint old thing to do at weddings, or some kind of sport or aerobic. On the other hand, maybe the exception we’re making in order to justify dancing isn’t really justified?

The difference is that fornication is inherently sinful. Dancing is not, nor is perceived sensuality within the dance. If it places you in the near occasion of sin because of sexual temptation, then perhaps rethink. But the fact that some moves seem to have suggestive overtones is not relevant.

I would talk to your priest about scruples.

It’s not inherently sinful, as in the moves or moving to the rhythm of music or any other such part of dancing is not a sinful act on its own.

There is probably no sinful intent either in a normal case, unless we have been culturally conditioned to tolerate inappropriately large levels of sexual or sensual stimulation (which is possible and even likely, although the extent would be up to debate).

Non-inherently-evil acts can still be an occasion of sin (including near occasion of mortal sin in due to some circumstances surrounding a thing which is of itself morally neutral). Nowadays we are generally having a problem avoiding occasions of sin because we like so many things and don’t want to give them up. For example, we would be likely to tell someone being tempted how to resist temptation etc. but we would be hardly inclined to tell him to flee that temptation, which is what the older school of thought would have recommended and which Saint Paul also required (not even occasion but appearance of sin was to be fled according to him). This is also a reason why I’m allowing myself to question our cultural tolerance for dancing.

Of the theologians I’ve read (unfortunately, not in English, and haven’t been able to locate them by a google search for guesstimates of appropriate keywords ), perhaps only one or two even tried to claim dancing was inherently sinful. Most actually specifically said it wasn’t inherently sinful but proceeded to say that the surrounding circumstances (of 16th-20th century European balls, from royal court to the inn, i.e. inevitably many sceneries that we’d be looking at as totally innocent nowadays), however, made it even a mortal sin to attend, even passively, or at least a near occasion of mortal sin (and in effect a mortal sin if occasion not duly avoided without a sufficient cause).

And yes, there were instances where mediaeval ecclesiastic authorities forbade too frequent washing (because it was unhealthy and prideful ). One obviously needs some common sense. But common sense does suggest that it’s not only overt sex that causes a problem, that excessive sensuality between unmarried people or people who are married to someone else (which is harder to nail down and harder to give up than overt sexuality) is also a potential source of problem.

Mental exercise:
Question: How often is it considered socially acceptable to have a stretched-out male body press on a stretched-out female body?
Answer: Only on dance floor and in very limited range of situations like childhood friends having not seen each other for many years and being overwhelmed with enthusiasm at meeting.

Question: What about waist or shoulder embrace?
Answer: Family and friends, generally not for a very long time between adults of the opposite gender, though technically there’s nothing gay about friends of the same gender doing it.

Question: Man and man dancing waltz or a Latino dance (rumba, samba, cha-cha, salsa etc.)?
Answer: Die, heretic!!!1
(Caveat: Women do get away with it, as do dance teachers.)

No wonder somebody questions it from time to time.

 

[JoArtist]

Ballroom dancing is fine, just as long as you don’t get too into some of the forms. It is a cultural expression and art (dancing is a form of art) is an important part of culture. It would be like saying that people who hug and kiss on greeting (even though it is cultural and not done in a sexual way) are wrong. I know all of my friends and family hug and kiss upon greeting. Where I live now, people don’t do that, so I hold back. As long as things are done in a non-sexual way and in the appropriate setting, there is nothing wrong with them.

 

[chevalier]

Ballroom dancing is fine, just as long as you don’t get too into some of the forms. It is a cultural expression and art (dancing is a form of art) is an important part of culture. It would be like saying that people who hug and kiss on greeting (even though it is cultural and not done in a sexual way) are wrong. I know all of my friends and family hug and kiss upon greeting. Where I live now, people don’t do that, so I hold back. As long as things are done in a non-sexual way and in the appropriate setting, there is nothing wrong with them.

That’d be my own assessment too (along with most Catholics, I suppose), it’s the long stream of theologians (from early centuries to 20th) and their quotes that’s making me question the assumptions that may be underlying this opinion (i.e. my opinion), in light of the fact that our sensitivity is likely to be reduced and our tolerance enhanced due to the influence of our culture on us. My first observation is that we generally tolerate a whole lot of sensuality that isn’t immediately sexual but is definitely a male-female affair (and e.g. would feel “gay” between members of the same sex) and not necessaryily appropriate for people who aren’t married to each other or at least legitimately exploring the possibility of marriage, e.g. the mild pleasure resulting from the strong male arm to lean on, or the delicate female figure clinging, (which I suspect most professional dancers don’t feel and most social dancers do feel and probably seek) that kind of thing can be dangerous too and is not necessarily legitimate for singles or married-to-someone-elses to enjoy (which we may be ignoring because we’re focused on much bigger things to fight, such as societal acceptance of outright fornication), although at the same time for a scrupulous person or a moral rigorist is very easy to exaggerate into something bigger than it is. I am not a rigorist that would insist on looking for a mortal sin there but I couldn’t rule out venial and I would be inclined towards the opinion that such sensations should not be sought or welcomed for mere social enjoyment, even though they might be legitimate between people who actually “are in love” with each other (and are thus not engaging their, ehm, sensual faculties for mere social fun.

Another example: kissing is probably fine for people who are in love with each other and are exploring lifetime commitment (regardless whether they understand such fancy words); on the other hand kissing for fun (e.g. spin the bottle party game in which whomever the opposite ends of the bottle indicate, get to kiss as long as genders are opposite) is intuitively bad (abuse of the faculty).