TIA responds:

M.S.,

Thank you for sending us the article, "Why Catholics Should Learn to Dance" and asking our opinion. It is as follows.

Our stance on dancing and what dances are acceptable for Catholics can be found here. As stated in that article, we do not disagree that Catholics may dance, and we even affirm that healthful and moral dances should be offered for young people in order to give them some innocent entertainment and keep them from following the modern dances the world offers abundantly.

However, we should be very cautious to uphold Catholic morality, a care that is not taken into due consideration in the article you sent us. Our dance articles set out those guidelines in more detail than we will give in this short response. Please check them here, here, here, here, here, and here.

First, Dr. Kwasniewski, as well as the other two writers, wrongly assume that waltzes and, shockingly, even swing dances are innocent (some commentary on the immorality of swing dance can be found in this article). He remarks that the swing is "energetic and looser, but still social in character (not individualistic) and patterned (not freeform)." Supposedly, as long as dance is not individualistic or freeform like the modern movements called dancing today, there is nothing wrong with it, because the most important point of dancing is its social character. This is positively a liberal assessment that disregards Catholic Morals.

In the contribution of Mrs. McLean, who is a dance instructor, we find the same lack of consideration for Catholic Morals. She goes as far as to joke about it when she says: "Really, the only real challenge I can see to traditional social dancing is launched not by morality, let alone religion, but by embarrassment at not knowing how to dance."

Whereas these statements may sound good to modern people who long for a more communal society, what the three authors do not take into consideration are the precautions necessary in social relations between men and women. The Saints understood this well, and it is for this reason that many of them spoke strongly against dancing. Their admonitions should be considered seriously rather than simply disregarded as applying to some other time and place.

If the authors had set out serious distinctions and rules to be followed when dancing, this would have been a more prudent approach to a delicate subject. Instead it seems they all have some attachments to these types of dancing and, therefore, do not reasonably set out the cons with the pros. None of them seem to be willing to give up such forms of dancing even when, indeed, they are not permitted by the Church, nor do they adequately address the objections presented by Saints and more traditional minded Catholics.

Second, the idea they present that boys and girls are psychologically hindered if they barely interact with the other sex is unsound. We refer to Dr. Kwasniewski comments: "I would maintain that a much bigger problem in trad circles is that boys and girls don’t have many healthy and normal opportunities for interacting, so they often barely associate with one another, are afraid of the opposite sex, and get into other troubles, not the least of which is spending years of youth in loneliness or only with members of the same sex."

He then goes on to connect this supposed isolation to the reason young Catholics are having trouble getting married. While it must be admitted that there is a problem with the relations between boys and girls, in our view this problem lies chiefly in a lack of formation and preparedness for the duties of marriage, rather than in a lack of conversation and social engagement between boys and girls.

In the past, boys and girls did not frequently interact with each other. Girls spent time with girls and boys spent time with boys, yet marriages took place at a much more numerous and successful rate than today. In fact, that past grouping of the sexes in work and play helped to foster a feminine way of being in the girls and a masculine way of being in the boys, both of which attracted the other.

There were no "youth groups" where the sexes mingled for hugs and watching movies. Rather, girls remained in their homes with their mothers, and would meet boys at family parties, church festivals and holidays with friends at celebrations where all ages were present. That is, these meetings took place under the supervision of their families, or young men would come to the family home to court the daughters, again always with supervision from the family.

Dances would at times take place at such gatherings, but it would generally not be at the dance that a girl first met a boy. Dances are not an ideal place for young men and women to meet, because sentiment often overrides reason as the couples are carried away with the movements and music. Good dancers seek each other out not for the qualities and virtue of the person, but for the excitement of the dance.

Also, romantic thoughts are easily aroused, especially in waltzes. Even if these thoughts are not impure, they cloud proper judgment. Meeting a stranger at a dance does not give a young man or woman enough background to understand who the person is, nor does it reveal their character.

Although it is possible for the introduction at a dance to lead to a proper courtship, we do not believe it is the normal way to seek marriage.

If time allows, we plan to begin a series of articles on courtship that will further discuss wholesome customs of the past and analyze what the solution is for the modern dating world.

We hope these considerations on the article you indicated on dance are helpful to you.

     Cordially,

     TIA correspondence desk