Going to dances in 1800s

  • Thread starter Thread starter aball1035
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

aball1035

Guest
I’ve been reading an article about S. John Vianney. The article (link below said)

traditioninaction.org/SOD/j084sdCureArs_8-4.htm

“He was an enemy of dancing. You should note that the dances of that time were far different from the immoral and outrageous dances of today. The young ladies were completely covered and had skirts that reached to the floor. If he condemned those dances, what would he say about ours? His condemnation went so far as to deny absolution to those who would not promise to stop going to such dances… Many persons would go to other churches to receive absolution. Hearing this, he simply commented: If other priests want to send them to Hell, it is up to them.”

Why would the saint be so strict on dancing in the 1800s?
 
That’s certainly an odd thing to say. Wasn’t he the one sending them to Hell by refusing absolution?
 
Elizium23 said:
That’s certainly an odd thing to say. Wasn’t he the one sending them to Hell by refusing absolution?
Click to expand...
Well, would he be sending someone to hell if he gave absolution to someone who cohabitating and had no intention to stop? He can’t reallly give absolution to someone who isn’t sorry and doesn’t intend to stop.
 
Allegra said:
Because it involed men touching girls’ waists.
Click to expand...
Well, according to my period etiquette guide, it worked both ways: it is improper to hold the lady’s hand behind you or to have it on your hip (or for the lady to place it there). The guide also warns against dancing with the same person too long or frequently, and that the men should be more careful to not ‘injure’ the lady’s dress.

I’m likely going to take flak for this, but I think it’s reasonable advice.

-Byrnwiga
 
Saint Damien of Molokai, my patron saint, had the same problem with dancing. I do believe he always gave absolution after confession, but he did rant and rave against anyone caught doing the hula dance. Probably because the hula was used a lot in the 1800s to worship false hawaiian gods: Laka, Pele, and Kane. And worshipping false gods really angered him.
 
I think I remember reading something St. Francis DeSales wrote about dances. I think the problem that he found in them was that people were doing it in excess. People would stay up really late and dance all night long (and other reasons?). He said that it was a dangerous activity because of this, but that it could be done morally in moderation. I can look for exactly what he said later if anyone would like.
 
I’m not familiar with this saint, so I had to read the link to see that he lived in France.

Maybe he was protesting the Can-Can?😃
 
aball1035 said:
I’ve been reading an article about S. John Vianney. The article (link below said)

traditioninaction.org/SOD/j084sdCureArs_8-4.htm

“He was an enemy of dancing. You should note that the dances of that time were far different from the immoral and outrageous dances of today. The young ladies were completely covered and had skirts that reached to the floor. If he condemned those dances, what would he say about ours? His condemnation went so far as to deny absolution to those who would not promise to stop going to such dances… Many persons would go to other churches to receive absolution. Hearing this, he simply commented: If other priests want to send them to Hell, it is up to them.”

Why would the saint be so strict on dancing in the 1800s?
Click to expand...
Opinion:He was not strictly speaking “an enemy of dancing” as such,but rather what it lead to.Understand that the Cure’D’Ars came to this town post-revolution era.A lot of France had lost the faith,did not practice the faith or it was severely suppressed by the state.Given these circumstances I can only imagine the level of reprobational activity and the level of sensuality would be in maximum effect.When he first rang the Church bell on Sunday to call all to mass,the town was shocked!Only a hand full of people attended.This should illustrate the gravity of what he had to face in,…yes…the 1800s!There needed to be a radical change,and of stringent or desperate methods to make an about face to bring a once very religious community(pre-revolution)back to God.This may explain his standpoint on dancing?
 
I read that even Padre Pio was against dancing and people going to discoes. He said that it was an invitation to sin.
 
I think it came with the times.

In the early 1900s, several US Protestant leaders said similar things.

One was quoted as saying that the “sixth commandment has no more force in a dance hall than a glass fort in front of a howitzer”. Another said that the dance hall was a stop on the Highway to Hell.

ICXC NIKA
 
What does the catechism say about dancing. Just because they were saints doesn’t mean they were infallible.
 
Having had some ballroom dancing lessons of the type probably done in St John Vianney’s day, I can say it is a more intimate form of dancing than mainstream modern dancing as done at high school dances, where there is little or no physical contact between dancers.

I’m not referring to blatantly sexualised ‘bumping and grinding’ or anything of the type, of course.
 
LilyM said:
Having had some ballroom dancing lessons of the type probably done in St John Vianney’s day, I can say it is a more intimate form of dancing than mainstream modern dancing as done at high school dances, where there is little or no physical contact between dancers.

I’m not referring to blatantly sexualised ‘bumping and grinding’ or anything of the type, of course.
Click to expand...
Plus, with all that spinning and twirling, someone might accidentally see a girl’s shoe!:eek:
 
I’m going to hazard a guess that there’s some context we don’t know about here.

Is it possible that in that day, an unsupervised gathering of young people to dance would only appeal to those interested in what we’d call today “hooking up?” We really take for granted today the amount of freedom of movement that young single people have. In that era, perhaps it was not so much. Did they simply live at home with parents until being married (and perhaps even beyond)?

Before simply mocking the Cure (as Allegra seems to be), perhaps we ought to try to comprehend the context.
 
manualman said:
I’m going to hazard a guess that there’s some context we don’t know about here.

Is it possible that in that day, an unsupervised gathering of young people to dance would only appeal to those interested in what we’d call today “hooking up?” We really take for granted today the amount of freedom of movement that young single people have. In that era, perhaps it was not so much. Did they simply live at home with parents until being married (and perhaps even beyond)?

Before simply mocking the Cure (as Allegra seems to be), perhaps we ought to try to comprehend the context.
Click to expand...
👍 It’s also possible that in the Cure’s village, dances were where prostitutes found new customers or perhaps a house of ill-repute held dances. We’d have to know the exact context in which he’s writing and his experience with what dances were taking place at that specific time in history, in his location, to really understand what he meant. (That’s very important for understanding a lot of what various Saints have said throughout history and also when reading certain passages in the Bible, too.
 
I honestly think he was more against what happened after the dance than the dance itself. Honestly even the most innocent of dances can lead to impure thoughts. I do wonder though how John Vianney would feel about catholic and christian groups holding dances, but I think he’d be okay with it as long as it was in the right environment. More than likely the dances in John Vianney’s town took place at a tavern and probably had a lot of drinking and prostitution going on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top