Dances at Parties for Benefit of Churches (1934)

[537] Qu. 1. Sometimes at a garden party held for the benefit of the parish a dance is given by a parish society in the parish hall and the proceeds are donated to the parish. Is this practice in conflict with the prohibition of dances under church auspices?

2. Are only public dances held for that purpose forbidden, or are also dances held in private houses, but promoted in order to obtain funds for the church? Can you indicate the canons of the Code to substantiate your answer?

Resp. In both the decree of 31 March, 1916,[1] and the [538] declaration to this decree, 10 December, 1917,[2] the Sacred Consistorial Congregation forbids priests "to promote and foster" (promoveant et foveant) dances. It is difficult to see how such dances may be held in parish property unless the pastor gives his approval. One must therefore conclude that the practice described above is forbidden. It is true, by questionable casuistry, some priest may cleverly (?) direct the society to proceed "without his knowledge and consent" to hold the dances; and thus pretend that he is not at fault. Actually, however, this ruse deceives no one, not even himself.

2. The two documents referred to above make no distinction as to the place where the proscribed dances for the benefit of a church are to be held. Without distinction they forbid all priests to promote them and even to be present at them, if the dances are arranged for by lay persons.

There is no explicit mention of this prohibition in the Code. At most (if the words "Ad decimarum et primitiarum solutionem" may be taken in a wide sense), it would come under canon 1502, since the condemned practice is anything but a "laudable" custom. Directly, however, this prohibition derives from the above decree of the Consistorial Congregation. Although it antedates the Code, it nevertheless remains in force as a particular rule not contrary to the canons. It is moreover not a mere disciplinary regulation, but rather a condemnation and proscription of a practice that is an abuse.

The decree and the declaration in regard to it were issued only for the United States and Canada. As such they do not oblige other countries.

---

Footnotes:

1. Acta. Ap. Sedis, VIII (1916), 147-148; Ecclesiastical Review, LXV (1916), 69-70.

2. Acta. Ap. Sedis, X (1918), 17; Ecclesiastical Review, (1918), 537.

---

Source: "Dances at Parties for Benefit of Churches," Ecclesiastical Review 90, no. 5 (May 1934): 537–538.

"Dancing Priests" and the Council of Baltimore (1919)

[445] A zealous pastor who frowns upon dancing among Catholics because the practice, much like card-playing and brandy, has a bad name, comments adversely upon the answer given in the August number of the REVIEW under the heading "Priests and Dancing Parties". He holds that dancing parties, even for good objects promoting religion or piety, are an abuse, and that the proceeds of such entertainments is "tainted" money, which a priest may not accept for religious purposes. In support of this view a canon from the Council of Baltimore is cited: "Mandamus quoque ut sacerdotes illum abusum, quo convivia parantur cum choreis [balls] ad opera pia promovenda, omnino tollendum current."

We have in the many instances when discussing the question directed attention to the distinction between dances that are a danger to morals, and dancing as a popular amusement indulged in for recreation. The latter is not illicit, though it has its dangers for the individual. Certain methods and functions connected with balls violate decency and modesty and are therefore forbidden by the moral law. In some cases dancing, like wine and card-playing, becomes a direct occasion of sin, against which Christians are to be warned. On the principal that "Qui amat periculum in illo peribit," the Church as the guardian of morals formulates definite precautions against the peril of sin, and this is the object of the Council of Baltimore when it forbids convivia cum choreis. [446] What the Bishops of the Plenary Council forbid is not dancing, but a certain class of dancing parties protracted into the night after banqueting, when the bodies and the imaginations of the participants are heated to the danger point of passion. "Convivia cum choreis", when they constitute an abuse, are very different things from dancing as a mere amusement. Glycerine has a soothing and healing virtue, though in connexion [sic] with certain chemicals it becomes an explosive calculated to destroy health and life. So here. In medio virtus.

---

Source: "'Dancing Parties' and the Council of Baltimore," Ecclesiastical Review 61, no. 4 (Oct. 1919): 445–446.

Priests and Dancing Parties (1919)

 [200] Qu. Will you kindly answer the following questions:

1. Does the prohibition regarding dances extend to institutions under the supervision of religious, such as orphanages, hospitals, etc., when these institutions arrange entertainments, bazaars, lawn parties, etc., for the benefit of their upkeep?

[201] 2. May the different committees or societies or sodalities which have booths for these institutions or for a church benefit at such entertainment, permit dances in connexion [sic] with the event in order to swell the proceeds?

3. May a pastor receive for church uses, funds which he knows to be the result of dances under the auspices of said societies, especially when he knows of the arrangement in advance, though he is not directly connected with such amusements?

Resp. Dancing in itself is not an illicit amusement, though it has its dangers for the individual. Certain dances, or methods connected with them, which plainly violate decency and modesty, are forbidden by the moral law, and whatever tends to these practices is to be prevented like all other moral wrong in the flock, by the prudent foresight of the pastor charged with the care of souls.

Since it is not always possible for the priest personally to determine the actual line at which decorum is overstepped, or to anticipate possible acts calculated to scandalize sensitive consciences, his presence at such amusements may easily start criticism and scandal without his being responsible for or even capable of censuring it in the individual. For this reason the ecclesiastical authorities forbid priests to promote or be present at such diversions. (S. C. Consist., 10 Dec. 1917.) To refuse, however, to permit these dances or to regard the proceeds of dancing parties organized for charitable purposes as "tainted money" which a priest may not accept, would be to pronounce the dancing under the circumstances as immoral, which is not true. Those who, as Catholics, promote the parties are obliged to safeguard their enterprise as far as possible from becoming a source of sin or scandal. And priests as well as other religious instructors are bound to present this obligation to their charges.

---

Source: "Priests and Dancing Parties," Ecclesiastical Review 61, no. 2 (Aug. 1919): 200–201.

Dancing at a Concert for Benefit of Church (1918)

 [323] Qu. Would you kindly answer the following question in the next issue of your REVIEW? May I give permission to the Catholics of my parish to give a concert for the benefit of our new church, knowing that the concert includes a dnace?

Resp. As this query comes from a far-off clime we presume that the inquirer has not seen the question of dancing at Church celebrations discussed in the pages of the REVIEW. Briefly, then, for his benefit, and that of others to whom a reminder may not be untimely, the decree of 31 March, 1916, renewing the provisions of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, forbids two things: first, that priests should organize or "get up" ("promovere vel fovere") dances, even when such dances are for the benefit of the Church or for some other pious purpose; second, when such dances are organized by others, the priest is forbidden to be present. To give permission for a concert at which the pastor knows that there will be dancing will or will not fall under the first of these prohibitions according to circumstances. In most cases, we think it would.

---

Source: "Dancing at a Concert for Benefit of Church," Ecclesiastical Review 58, no. 3 (March 1918): 323.

Promulgation of New Decrees (1916)

 [192] Qu. Does the new decree in regard to dancing bind pastors as soon as it is made known through the Catholic press, even if the Ordinary has not promulgated it in the diocese?

Resp. Since 1909, to make a Roman law or decree binding in foro externo it is sufficient that it be published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The publication of a document in that periodical takes the place of the dispatch of an official copy to the bishops, as was the custom before 1909. The presumption is that a decree enacted and promulgated by the Holy See will be put into execution by the Ordinary. If, in exceptional cases, for reasons which he must make known to the Holy See, he suspends the application of a Roman decree, he [193] must expressly notify his diocese. A clergyman therefore who reads a decree in the Acta, or who, through the Catholic press, knows that it is published in the Acta, is bound, without further notification, by the provisions which it enacts.

---

Source: "Promulgation of New Decrees," Ecclesiastical Review 55, no. 2 (August 1916): 192–193.

The Decree On Dancing (1916)

 [193] Qu. In the small country parish in which I am stationed, the people have been accustomed to dance at our church picnics. The dances in vogue, however, were the old-fashioned country, or square, dances. Recently, after I had prohibited dancing at the annual picnic, a delegation of young men asked me to give them permission to hold a free dance in the parish hall, for the use of which they would pay a small fee. In the event of not getting permission, they would, they told me, hold the dance in the town hall, some distance from the church. After giving the matter some thought, and for the reason that it is better to have the dance under some kind of parochial control, I decided to let them have the hall. Now I would like to have your answer to the following questions:

1. Does the phrase "certain dances" apply to all dances whatsoever, or only to some?

2. Is a pastor permitted to visit the hall during the dancing, to see that it is orderly and that the dances are conformable to Christian modesty?

3. Is a pastor justified in permitting the dances in the parish hall in order to keep a certain control over them, it being understood that there is no thought of thereby raising funds for religious purposes?

Resp. 1. The answer to the first query is that all kinds of dances, no matter how old-fashioned or "harmless", are meant. The phrase "certain dances" occurs in the title of the decree, "Decretum circa quasdam choreas"; but it is evident from the use of the word "choreas" in the text of the decree that we must translate: "Decree concerning certain dancing-parties". The decree makes no distinction between new dances and old, between square dances and round; it does, however, distinguish between dancing-parties that are given under church auspices and those organized by laymen. The former kind are forbidden, no matter the program of dances may be.

2. In regard to the second question, we think that the text of the decree clearly prohibits the pastor's presence at dancing[194]-parties organized by lay people. The motive, namely, "to see that the party is orderly, etc.", does not justify his presence. Of course, if grave disorder should occur in a dance-hall and the pastor were summoned thither in the performance of his duty, the present decree need not deter him from entering the hall.

3. There may be room for discussion of the third question. The decree positively forbids the promotion and encouragement of such entertainments on the part of members of the clergy, religious or diocesan: "quonimus memoratas choreas promoveant et foveant"; at the same time, when it comes to the case of such entertainments being organized by lay people, the decree does not say that the pastor should interpose his authority, and forbid them, but enacts that he should not be present. Does the renting of the parish hall amount to a mere tolerance or is it promoting and encouraging? In a thoroughly Catholic community, where there is no danger of the priest's attitude being misunderstood, especially if the entertainment be not associated with a church picnic, excursion, or any other church affair organized by the priest, it seems that, since there is no authoritative interpretation of the decree on this point, the priest may rent the church hall for an entertainment organized by lay people, even when he knows that dancing is part of the program.

---

Source: "The Decree on Dancing," Ecclesiastical Review 55, no. 2 (August 1916): 193–194.

What is Considered Indecent Dress of Women by the Supreme Authority of the Church? (1930)

[1328] Question: I there any authoritative statement of the Holy  See as to what constitutes indecent dress of women? It is evident that effective action against unchristian fashions for women can be had only if one can point out with precision things that are judged indecent by the Church. —VERITAS

Answer: Yes, there is such an authoritative statement. Recently one of our correspondents has kindly sent us a copy of a leaflet published by the Central Bureau of the Catholic Central Verein, with the Imprimatur of the Most Rev. John J. Glennon, Archbishop of St. Louis. In this leaflet there are translated from the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, January 12, 1930 (cfr. THE HOMILETIC AND PASTORAL REVIEW, April, 1930, pp. 757-759), those points which the Holy See wants the bishops to attend to in an effort to stop the spread of indecent fashions for women. So earnest is the Holy See about this matter that it requires the bishops to state in their quinquennial report on the state of their dioceses what they have done to counteract this evil. Furthermore, the above-mentioned leaflet draws attention to the fact that the aforesaid Instruction incorporates by reference a letter of the Sacred Congregation of Religious, August 23, 1928, to the religious communities of women in the City of Rome conducting girls' schools. In that letter specific directions are given as to what the Holy See considers unbecoming dress for Catholic women and girls. We quote from the leaflet: "In order that uniformity of understanding prevail in all institutions of religious women regarding the cases in which the aforecited [sic] prescriptions of the Congregation of Religious apply, we recall that a dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers' breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper, as also flesh-colored stockings, which suggest the legs being bare."

The reader can judge for himself how many of the Catholic ladies, young and old, contradict the teaching of the Supreme Authority of the Church in their manner of dressing, not only in the streets, but even in our churches and when approaching Holy [1329] Communion. The spirit of liberty in its exaggerated form, and the lack of delicacy of Christian modesty lost through contact with life in the midst of an overwhelmingly large neo-pagan population that is mostly Christian in name only, have made even ordinarily good Catholic women and young ladies unconscious of the indecency of modern dress and its offense against public Christian morality. It will require a country-wide concerted effort of the Catholic Church in the United States to bring back to them the Christian sense of modesty, not by impatient scolding and severe condemnation and penalties, but by persistent and uniform teaching of the high sense of morality evidenced in the lives of the Saints and the vast majority of our Catholic ancestors.

---

Source: Stanislaus Woywod, OFM, LLB, "What is Considered Indecent Dress of Women by the Supreme Authority of the Church?" The Homiletic and Pastoral Review 30, no. 12 (Sept. 1930): 1328–1329.

 https://archive.org/details/sim_homiletic-pastoral-review_1930-09_30_12/page/1328/mode/2up

Dancing Parties Under "Catholic" Auspices (1916)

[84] Dancing Parties Under "Catholic" Auspices.

The current "Analecta" contains a document of special importance from the S. Congregation of Consistory. Its purpose is to enforce the decree of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore which prohibits "entertainments" with balls for the purpose of promoting pious projects—"convivia cum choreis". The "provida mens" of the Bishops in Council assembled not only forbade such entertainments but enjoined the pastors to do what they could to prevent them. "Mandamus quoque ut sacerdotes illum abusum, quo convivia parantur cum choreis (balls) ad opera pia promovenda, omnino tollendum current" (Conc. Plen. Balt. III. cap. V, n. 290).

How far ecclesiastical superiors may be responsible for the neglect of the decree is not easy to determine; but the fact that Catholic papers in various parts openly advertise such entertainments would indicate that no particular censorship has been exercised in the matter. A primary qualification of fitness of a Catholic editor is or should be the ability to exercise intelligent responsibility in safeguarding, besides knowing, the diocesan laws. Catholic editors may have been guided in such matters by priests who overlooked these laws. Some of them have been foreigners, and diocesan statutes, much less the Baltimore Councils, were not their normal guides. So the matter went on until we had a "custom" against which an individual voice and even the local Ordinaries found it difficult to raise a successful protest. Now the protest has come, apparently from Canada, whose border parishes have been invaded by the usage tolerated in the United States. It will be difficult to abandon it, at least without creating the discontent that turns hundreds who are bound by the chains of social [85] obligations away from the sacraments or the Church and religion. But the Holy See has made it clear that our tolerance has been amiss.

Once more we may be allowed to call attention to the conduct of the Catholic press. There has been a good deal of discussion recently about the duties of Catholic editors and about the support our people owe to Catholic periodicals. Some years ago the REVIEW published a paper on this subject. We reprint it in part here because it may be suggestive. The excuse of editors that "the priests should advise us in such matters" is puerile. A journalist has no right to assume the editorship of a Catholic paper unless he knows and is prepared to defend the laws of the Church, if need be even independently or against the practice of the priests. Says the writer referred to in the ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW:

When a brother custodian of "Religion's sacred fires" guards his trust according to his own conscience, even though is methods differ from mine, I may have no right to find fault. But if the smoke of those "fires" blows in my direction, to the detriment of my discipline and the confusion of my flock, surely my giving some account of the faith that is in me, cannot be construed into any assumption on my part of superior wisdom or piety, or as meddlesome impertinence.

Now I wonder how Catholic papers can consistently and conscientiously make a practice of publishing emblazoned accounts of dances and balls given by Catholic societies and under Catholic auspices. Catholic papers, persistently and rightly, I think, insist on the importance of the apostolate of the Catholic press. While the readers of Catholic papers may not accept as doctrine every salutary statement they see in a Catholic paper, most of them will, probably, accept as "gospel truth" from which there is no appeal, any declaration or suggestion favoring greater amplitude in a matter of coveted liberties.

Some time ago one of my Reverend neighbors was reported as having declared that his parishioners might dance all they wished. Knowing by experience that this man weighs the moral bearing of his words, I felt entirely safe in absolutely denying the report as it stood, and I soon found that he had said nothing of the kind. Such a declaration from a pastor would, it seems to me, unnecessarily encourage a practice which, given the reins, soon runs to the devil, and would considerably embarrass parents who conscientiously keep their sons and daughters away from such places of amusement.

[86] But if such a declaration from a pastor were imprudent, is not the publication of such amusements in a Catholic paper likewise imprudent? Let a pastor see fit publicly to denounce dancing in his parish, while his hearers read reports in Catholic papers, of balls and dances under Catholic auspices, and they will probably conclude that their pastor is rather old-fashioned or fanatical, too young or too old to know better.

Of course, there is no dearth of authority, sacred and profane, ancient as well as modern, in support of the pastor's position. Several Councils of the Church have anathematized dances, and the Council of Laodicea forbade them even at weddings. The Council of Trent (sess. XXII. c. 1. De ref.) forbids clerics under pain of ecclesiastical censure to be even present at any. The good and learned St. Charles Borromeo called dances "a circle of which the devil is the centre [sic] and his slaves the circumference". St. John Chrysostom denounced them as "a school for impure passions". Many more similar texts might be adduced. Nor are these at variance with Holy Scripture, which says anent this subject, among other uncomplimentary things: "Use not much the company of her that is a dancer, lest thou perish ["] (Ecclus. 9: 4).

Should it be suspected that the saints are not competent judges in a matter of this kind, profane and heathen authors may be found galore to testify to the same effect. Sallust, for instance, himself a dancer, and anything but a saint, declared of a certain Roman lady, that "she danced too well for an honest woman". Even applied in our day these words are not without some truth, at least.

Certainly, there is no disputing the theory that dancing under favorable circumstances may be tolerated, and that even waltzing may be done decently. Yet may we not say, in the words of Dr. Cook, author of Satan in Society, that waltzes at their best are, to put it mildly, "subversive of that modest reserve and shyness, which in all ages has proved the true aegis of virtue"? Whence one might ask, has Terpsichore the right, under the palliating title of "fashionable grip", to sanction liberties and poses that would be accounted rude indecencies, to say the least, under any other auspices?

Of course so long as theory says that some dances may be innocent, on goes the dance—the St. Vitus's dance, the Tam O'Shanter dance, and the innocent dance. But it is one thing, quietly and restrictedly to tolerate dancing, and quite another thing to herald and trumpet such toleration to a public only too apt and eager to accept the liberty and ignore the restriction. (C. P. B.)

Such toleration, however, cannot be identified with the sanction given to public and fashionable dancing in connexion [sic] with Catholic charities or educational enterprises, in which [87] while we offer to Catholics aid and instruction with one hand, we press them down with the other to the low level in which they breathe sensual amusement. The advertisement of such amusements is not mere toleration.

---

Source: J.F.S., "Dancing Parties under 'Catholic' Auspices," Ecclesiastical Review 55, no. 1 (July 1916): 84–87.