St. John Vianney and dancing

[CompSciGuy]

I have always been a great fan of St John Vianney (and still am) but I read something about him on Wikipedia that I found baffling, which led me to further research his views on this subject. He seemed to be very much against dancing/dances, particularly boy/girl dances, etc. I am wondering why this might be. I never thought there was anything wrong about dancing, and have participated in barn dances that were very innocent. Perhaps there are other details that are culturally relevant to his opposition to dancing?

 

[Dorothy]

Yes, there is dancing that is fun and innocent. I’m thinking that he was talking about dancing that was an occasion of sin.

(there is a lot of that these days too!)

 

[TheMc]

I have always been a great fan of St John Vianney (and still am) but I read something about him on Wikipedia that I found baffling, which led me to further research his views on this subject. He seemed to be very much against dancing/dances, particularly boy/girl dances, etc. I am wondering why this might be. I never thought there was anything wrong about dancing, and have participated in barn dances that were very innocent. Perhaps there are other details that are culturally relevant to his opposition to dancing?

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that he was against dancing because during his time, the dancing was quite lewd. In other words, it wasn’t square dancing he was railing against…

 

[bbentrup]

For the most part, dances are not intrinsically evil. However, I believe they were the most likely source of an occasion of sin for his flock. There was and is a sexual element to mixed dance that is not to be underestimated. Nowadays, for most teenagers, there are far worse ways for them to be tempted, so the parents are somewhat forced to trust their kids and hope they are responsible enough to behave as God would like. (Not to say they shouldn’t prohibit their kids from attending a dance where they absolutely know immodest sexual behavior will occur.) St. John Vianney would likely have preferred that young adults would court in a more chaperoned setting, and in the auspices of mutual church familiarity (e.g.,a couple meets regularly after daily mass). If so, I agree that would be better (best?). However, it’s not how our current world works.

To sum: mixed dances are always an occasion for sin, but this was more pronounced in his era. He could do something about it; for the most part, we have to teach and trust. Both methods,old and new, are valid responses.

I hope this helps. God bless!

 

[Castello]

St John Vianney (pray for us) was writing his opinions, they are worthy opinions but do not hold the weight of doctrine.

 

[MilesVitae]

To sum: mixed dances are always an occasion for sin

To be clear, they are not always a near occasion of sin.

 

[bluerose]

Society’s moral code of St. John Vianney’s time was far stricter than ours… even where dancing was permitted, in some places, men and women wore gloves so as to prevent actual skin-to-skin contact (that was society’s rules, not the Church’s.) Naturally in a culture or society where such strictness was the norm, it’s understandable (perhaps expected) that church leaders would exhort their flock to even stricter standards.

I sometimes wish they would these days…

 

[bbentrup]

bbentrup:

To sum: mixed dances are always an occasion for sin.

To be clear, they are not always a near occasion of sin.

Hmm? Mixed dancing seems to naturally lead to thoughts about a person of the opposite sex. Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, and quite a lot good could result from such thoughts. However, for some people such thoughts can easily go astray, and thus represent a near occasion of sin. If the dances were not always an occasion of sin, I believe the good saint would have been writing how-to guides instead of cautioning against these dances. If only certain mixed dances were troublesome, he would have narrowed his admonition.

 

[TheMc]

If only certain mixed dances were troublesome, he would have narrowed his admonition.

But just to play devil’s advocate on this one, he wouldn’t have needed to narrow it down if other types of mixed dances were non existent in those times…

 

[bbentrup]

But just to play devil’s advocate on this one, he wouldn’t have needed to narrow it down if other types of mixed dances were non existent in those times…

Cast in the role of angel’s advocate then :angel1:, I would aver that the dances have worsened since then. So, if they were occasions of sin then, are they not now?

Whoever is right or wrong on this question, it’s not exactly material. There might be one mixed dance that is not an occasion of sin, but the general rule surely swallows it for conversational purposes.

 

[thistle]

Cast in the role of angel’s advocate then :angel1:, I would aver that the dances have worsened since then. So, if they were occasions of sin then, are they not now?

Whoever is right or wrong on this question, it’s not exactly material. There might be one mixed dance that is not an occasion of sin, but the general rule surely swallows it for conversational purposes.

A a general rule mixed dancing is NOT always an occasion of sin!

 

[bbentrup]

Thistle, can you break down the argument for me? I tried to spell out why I thought it was. Basically, to repeat myself, mixed dancing leads to thoughts of the opposite sex, especially with regards to their physically attractive qualities. Thinking about the opposite sex is an occasion of sin for a lot of people. Mixed-dancing can be justified by its upsides, but that doesn’t remove the fact that it is an occasion of sin, which we parents mitigate against through the teaching of prudent and modest behavior. If it were not an occasion of sin, St. Vianney would not have warned against it.

 

[Carina20]

If you’ve ever seen a dance nowadays among young people, it is definately an occasion of sin. Hence the reason and need of chaperones to literally pull the kids apart while dancing. It’s basically sex standing up with clothes on. It may not be an occasion of sin if it were a dance class where people are learning certain dance styles like ballrom, waltz, ect where the male and female bodies are not right up against each others.

 

[CompSciGuy]

If you’ve ever seen a dance nowadays among young people, it is definately an occasion of sin. Hence the reason and need of chaperones to literally pull the kids apart while dancing. It’s basically sex standing up with clothes on. It may not be an occasion of sin if it were a dance class where people are learning certain dance styles like ballrom, waltz, ect where the male and female bodies are not right up against each others.

You are thinking of grinding/spooning? I hear that is common among other people my age; although I never see that kind of dancing in my neck of the woods (perhaps I’m just very, very sheltered). The stuff I see is mainly like the Texas two-step, country western type dancing, square dancing, that sort of thing. It’s very harmless, except in some places (bars, etc.) women dress immodestly in which case I can see it becoming an occasion of sin.

For those who say that thinking of someone of the opposite sex can be a near occasion or even an occasion of sin, I am wondering, to what extent is “thinking of someone of the opposite sex” a sin? From what I understand, a man may see a woman and think she is beautiful, for example that she has a pretty face, and even be attracted to her physically (which is normal) and this is no sin, but it becomes sin once he lusts/fantasizes after her, thinks of her naked, or looks upon the more private areas of the woman. Would you agree with this?

 

[White_Peony]

To be clear, they are not always a near occasion of sin.

Right, I went to an All Saint’s Dance a week ago with the local White Army and there were guys and girls dancing.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

You are thinking of grinding/spooning? I hear that is common among other people my age; although I never see that kind of dancing in my neck of the woods (perhaps I’m just very, very sheltered). The stuff I see is mainly like the Texas two-step, country western type dancing, square dancing, that sort of thing. It’s very harmless, except in some places (bars, etc.) women dress immodestly in which case I can see it becoming an occasion of sin.

For those who say that thinking of someone of the opposite sex can be a near occasion or even an occasion of sin, I am wondering, to what extent is “thinking of someone of the opposite sex” a sin? From what I understand, a man may see a woman and think she is beautiful, for example that she has a pretty face, and even be attracted to her physically (which is normal) and this is no sin, but it becomes sin once he lusts/fantasizes after her, thinks of her naked, or looks upon the more private areas of the woman. Would you agree with this?

you can’t grind to country music. It’s the electronica/trance genre of music that is the foundation of grinding.

 

[Equites_Christi]

Well the whole thing is irrelevant anyways because people don’t dance anymore, they have sex with clothes on.

 

[thistle]

Thistle, can you break down the argument for me? I tried to spell out why I thought it was. Basically, to repeat myself, mixed dancing leads to thoughts of the opposite sex, especially with regards to their physically attractive qualities. Thinking about the opposite sex is an occasion of sin for a lot of people. Mixed-dancing can be justified by its upsides, but that doesn’t remove the fact that it is an occasion of sin, which we parents mitigate against through the teaching of prudent and modest behavior. If it were not an occasion of sin, St. Vianney would not have warned against it.

St Thomas Aquinas did not believe in The Immaculate Conception but that does not mean we have to accept what he says.

Show us anywhere in Church documents that mixed dancing is either always or often a sin or even an occasion of sin.

Under your thought process dancing should be banned completely unless you don’t want mixed dancing but are advocating same sex dancing??

 

[bbentrup]

St Thomas Aquinas did not believe in The Immaculate Conception but that does not mean we have to accept what he says.

Show us anywhere in Church documents that mixed dancing is either always or often a sin or even an occasion of sin.

Under your thought process dancing should be banned completely unless you don’t want mixed dancing but are advocating same sex dancing??

Huh? Lots of things are occasions for sin; that doesn’t mean we avoid them, per se. An occasion of sin is not the same thing as sin in fact. Indeed, the activity in question can be a very holy, very healthy activity. I can’t imagine we disagree on the concept here, probably just the terminology of the phrase “occasion of sin”.

Going to college is an “occasion for sin” for most people, but we have to trust our young adult children at some point; hopefully we have taught them the virtues they need to survive the moral dangers involved. The same is true for going to the beach. Mixed dancing is almost always an “occasion for sin” as well. Like the college example, the proof is common sense and/or personal experience and/or simple ratiocination. We allow these activities since they are not intrinsically evil. None of these are banned completely, but some people, realizing their own weaknesses, make prudent choices to avoid the activities in recognition of their being an “occasion of sin”.

 

[thistle]

Huh? Lots of things are occasions for sin; that doesn’t mean we avoid them, per se. An occasion of sin is not the same thing as sin in fact. Indeed, the activity in question can be a very holy, very healthy activity. I can’t imagine we disagree on the concept here, probably just the terminology of the phrase “occasion of sin”.

Going to college is an “occasion for sin” for most people, but we have to trust our young adult children at some point; hopefully we have taught them the virtues they need to survive the moral dangers involved. The same is true for going to the beach. ** Mixed dancing is almost always an “occasion for sin” as well.** Like the college example, the proof is common sense and/or personal experience and/or simple ratiocination. We allow these activities since they are not intrinsically evil. None of these are banned completely, but some people, realizing their own weaknesses, make prudent choices to avoid the activities in recognition of their being an “occasion of sin”.

That is simply not true.