B
bbentrup
Guest
Argumentation, please?That is simply not true.
Argumentation, please?That is simply not true.
he was preaching to his congregation, and to the people of his area who belonged to his parish but were not practicing the faith, and he was preaching in the face of widespread immorality among the population, no doubt blaming some of that on the type of dances going on. He was condemning that type of dancing, by those people, at that time and place, because it had that undesireable result.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?
So under your thought process then men and women should not travel on the same bus or train because that would mean they are putting themselves in an occasion where they can sin.Argumentation, please?
When you hold hands (or go a lot more intimate than that), relax dress rules to some degree, and encourage flirtation on buses, I will admit that that would be a good analogy.So under your thought process then men and women should not travel on the same bus or train because that would mean they are putting themselves in an occasion where they can sin.
Frankly all of this is silly.
Let’s all ban dancing and have separate buses and trains for men and women.
I think your answer is the best one yet. Thanks!While sexual morality is absolute and not relative, the occasions of sin related to it differ by culture and people. In many remote tropical cultures, women go about daily life bare breasted and nobody around them blinks. A woman tries that here, and she’ll cause a 20 car pileup…
I’m not an expert on mid1800’s culture, but I suspect that if you dig, you will find that dances of the day were a place where people typically went with the goal of ‘hooking up’ (whatever they called it back then). The Cure most likely was savvy enough of his culture to recognize that so he made a simplification to speak to his audience. Granted that hookup culture goes on plenty today too, but it is hardly a general statement one can make of ALL couples dancing in all places. See?
What?!! You can surely grind a lot easier to country music (although it’s nearly impossible) than to trance. Can you really grind to this masterpiece?you can’t grind to country music. It’s the electronica/trance genre of music that is the foundation of grinding.
great post.I consider dancing to be a legitimate art form such as has been supported and cultivated by the church for a very long time. Intimacy is a fundamental, not necessarily sexual aspect of human behaviour.
Dancing is a very social and even passionate art form, with such a level of passion as exists in any art form, but this very passion we find uplifting and inspirational, and not at all irreverent.
Behind all recreational dancing is an art school and a dancing academy, disciplined, devoted, and passionately concerned.
I completely agree- I polka with my friends and family and a very learned and holy priest taught us a really awesome circle dance from Slovakia, Poland or somewhere around there.To be clear, they are not always a near occasion of sin.
Liturgical dance wasn’t actually the topic of the thread… but I think pretty much all of us will agree with you. I am not in any way shape or form a “traditionalist” as it is often described… but I interpret innovations like “liturgical dance” as individuals saying “what the Church has given us isn’t good enough, I need worship to be more centered around me and my talents.”In The Good Book It Say’s There’s Time and Place For Everything (“if done morally”)
I certainly Don’t believe in Liturgical Dance at Masses.