The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, JULY 12, 1906. ABOUT DANCING

New Zealand Tablet, 12 July 1906, Page 21

The N ew Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, JULY 12, 1906. ABOUT DANCING

t"T is sometimes an evil and a bitter thing to fall into the hands of one's— friends. This is the hard 'fate that has befallen the Napier ' Daily Telegraph.' So far as we are aware,' it has not yet completed the incubation of that anti-biblical ' code of morals ' which anathematises every sort of resort to lot 1 or chance as ' a social scourge ', 'a great moral evil ', ' a curse and a crime '. We have placed the ' Telegraph ' in an exceedingly interesting and embarrassing situation. But" some of its inconsiderate and anonymous friends have given it ' the most unkindest cut of all '—-they have come to its assistance.

And -with vain but touching indiscretion they have strained to draw away the ' Tablet ' editor from that mysterious ' code of morals ' which the ■' Telegraph ' no rrore dares to face than if it were a chevaux-de-frise of fixed bayonets. * An old motto of discussion adwses the man who is not acquainted with a subject to say nothing*— and look intelligent, if he can. - The ' Telegraph's ' latest ' friend in need ' has not been so wise ia his generation. He is one of those amusing people who ' Know more of a trade b a hint Than those that have been brought up in 't.' He endeavors to create a diversion in favor of our hardpressed contemporary by trying to draw us into a discussion in its coJumns on — dancing ! Here are the salient points of his communication :—: — 'Is it not a funny thins; tha-t dancing between the two sexes is forbidden in many parts of Europe by the same Roman Catholic Church, so much that Catholics will not get absolution in the confessional unless they promise not to attend dances '{ Dancing there by the Catholic clergy is reckoned to be proximate occasion to mortal sin.' And he wante to know what ' code of morals ' it is that prohibits dancing in one place and permits it in another— to wit, New Zealand. Apart from the circumstances under which the question has arisen, the subject is one of practical interest to a large body of our readers. And, in addition, the socalled ' funny ' phase of it desenes treatment 1 for ,-the benefit of our Hawlce's Bay {i.ibsc-ribors. The masked man in the ' Telegraph ' professes to be ' behind the scenes '—an expression by which he evidently means to mislead his readers into the belief that he has inside or special knowledge of Catholic teaching and discipline. The questions he raises are questions of fact, and riot of law. He (1) makes sundry fitaten\ents of alleged fact ; (2) he asserts glaring inconsistency in the official Catholic attitude towards dancing. Bat lie has not tendered so much as a scrap of evidence in support of either of his assertions. These rest on no other authority than that of a man who takes the significant precaution of clapping a mas\ upon his face before he appears in the witness-box, and who gives his 'testimony' under an assumed name. Such a witness would get short shrift nowadays in any court of justice in western Christendom— or even in Crim Tartary. But he evidently imagines that his statements are entitled to pass current because of his assertion that he is ' behind the scenes.' Now we have resided 'in many parts of Europe.' And our claim to know something about Catholic teaching and discipline en the matter under consideration will deserve, and probably receive, more consideration than that of an anonymous writer in the Napier ' Daily Telegraph.' Now wo are pining to know the ' many parts of Europe ' in which ' the same Roman Catholic Church r forbids absolution to penitents (not ' some ' or ' certain ' penitents, but penitents taken universally, as the logicians say), ' unless they promise not to attend, dances '. The Avriter's slipshod use of words leaves one in some doubt as to whether he means ' dances ' in the full or universal extension of the term, or merely ' dancing between the two sexes.' But his statement is untrue, no matter which meaning is intended. Again : will the ir.an ' behind the scenes ' quote the exact words of the enactments by which the ' Roman Catholic Church ' restricts confessors in the manner indicated ? And will he favor vs v with the names and addresses of some of c the Catholic clergy ' ' in many parts "of Europe ' — or witlr* detailed references to their . theological manuals— that hold ' dancing ' (without expressed exception "or qualification) to be ' proximate occasion to mortal, sin ' ? And who, by the way, are the Catholics that speak of proximate occasion 'to ' mortal sn ? And how deliciously

vague is the reference to l many parts of Europe ' I The plain fact of the matter is this: the pretentious ' man behind the scenes ' in Napier is simply romancing. Like McColl's 'scientific 'oss \he • thinks > c knows a deal more nor he does '. Both -of his statements given above are erroneous in point of theology and untrue in point of fact.. His assumption of inside * knowledge 'is a palpable sham. We do not blame him for his ignorance of Catholic teaching and -discipline. That by itself is no crime. But ignorance becomes despicable when it puts on airs. And it becomes criminal when it claims inside knowledge in order to mislead. The man ' behind the scenes ' will probably • hear of something to his advantage ' before the winter is much older. So much for the man in the mask. And now a word on the question of fact, for the information of our readers. The following is a summary statement of the common teaching of Oatholis theologians : (1) Dancing is not in its nature sinful, just as the resort to the lot is not of itself sinful. (2) Dancing is permissible, just as the resort to chance is permissible, under certain conditions and safeguards which are duly set forth in all our manuals of moral theology. (3) Certain circumstances may render dancing unlawful. ( a ) It may, for instance, be carried on in a manner that is lewd ' immodest, or highly suggestive. In such circumstances it is always grievously sinful and is strictly forbidden For the generality of the people this is a proximate occasion of mortal sin. (b) Dancing may also become unlawful if indulged 'in to excess, or for a bad purpose, or under circumstances calculated to cause scandal. For Catholics, such circumstances would be the holding of great balls or boisterous dances on certain very holy days or seasons (Good Friday, for inatance), round dancing by persons consecrated to God etc. (c) Dancing that is in itself harmless m>ay be forbidden by. reason oE moral dangers which in this or that set of circumstances may arise in connection' with it We refer here more especially to what is called mixed dancing. Dancing by persons of different sexes together does not, of itself, come under the ban of the Church. Apart from abuses that have arisen, she has never, for instance, condemned the mixed national dances of Ireland and Spam. In these, however, the participants do not come into contact after The manner of the modern ball-room. ■ Round dances (as they are called) naturally present greater dangers of abuse. But no Catholic theoolog.ian .holds that they are always and for all persons ' proximate occasion to mortal sin.' Where they are forbidden, they are forbidden not ori that account, but (as theologians say) ' ratione .nericuli '-on .account of the -aangers they present. The danger referred to here is essentially relative. It differs in different persons and places. pPrp O r many there is none. Other persons may be s 0 constituted that they find suoh dances a proximate occasion of grievous sin. If so they are alnctly bound in conscience, under pain of mortal sin to abstain from them. And different manners, climate' and moral tone may (and sometimes do) make a form _of dancing that would be permissible in one country or province or district, unsafe or even extremely dangerous for young people in another. Those who have charge of souls (whether as bishops or -as pastors) must decide according to the best of their knowledge whether, and to what extent, dances (and we here refer more especially to round dances) are a real moral danger to the flock committed to their care. In the case of a diocese, the final judgment rests with the bishop. He is specially responsible to God for the souls of his people. And it is his duty to legislate on this matter for their good, as his knowledge of facts and his conscience may dictate. In regard to the

; moral principles underlying the matter, there is no disstance, arise on the -question, of . f act-namely,' as to whether dancing is, in concrete instances or undter actual sets of circumstances, sinful or dangerous. A further difference of opinion may arise as regarda the nature, extent, and duration, of local ecclesiastical legislation necessary to cope with evils or abuses or dangers whenever they are deemed to have arisen. Such divergences exist in' political and municipal, as well as m local ecclesiastical, -legislation.- And in all such cases they are grounded to a great extent on a knowledge of looal conditions and local requirements. People in divers countries and climates and provinces a re not racked or lopped to fit the s a me bed of Procrustes. And legislation is for people «* they are, in order t o make them what they ought to be. For the reasons stated above, some kinds of dancing may be tolerated m one country or diocese or district, and strongly d 1S couraged or openly forbidden, with various degrees o f rigor, i n others. Speaking generally, mixed dancing o f the ' r o und 'O r modern kind is not to be encouraged. " Quite the reverse to the contrairy,' aa the Genaal Showman phrases it. But it is not for unofficial outsiders to determine out of hand whether, in individual instances or in a concrete local case a ' proximate occasion' or a moral danger is really present. These are matters to be determined by competent ecclesiastical authority-just as competent civil authority is . a t times called upon to determine whether a motorist or a cabman has been driving 'to the common danger ' But wherever restrictions or prohibitions are in force, they have been conscientiously imposed for what those in the best position to judge deem to be good and sufficient reasons. And all true Catholics will loyally observe them. 9 (4) Unlike some Arthur Or ton critics who are false claimants to ' inside ' knowledge, the Catholic Church knows how to distinguish between aibuse and legitimate use ,n dancing as well as in lotteries an d other matters She never declared dancing to be (without exception or irualification) a 'proximate occasion to mortal sin.' She never issued an indiscriminate and universal condemnation of dancing. On the contrary to tins day she permits the liturgical dance that takes place in the Mozarabic rite in Toledo (Spain)— T C^ r i St x an counter P art » f t h e Joyous ceremonies of the Old Law, during which David danced with all his might before the Ark of the Lord. It may interest some of our readers to know that Luther was a strong advocate of dancing. He would even have people dance on Sundays. Speaking of Sunday ob>ervatice, he said : ' If anywhere anyone sets up its 'observance on a Jewish foundation, then I order you to work on it, to ride on it, to dance on it to feast on it-to do anything that 'shall reprove' this encroachment on the Christian spirit and liberty ' Calvin s nether limbe were never trained to ■ ' Trip it as he'd g<r On the light fantastic toe.' tout, dour old tyrant and .kill-joy as he was, he had his game o f bowls on a Sunday afternoon. And perhaps it gave him pangs of the sort o f joy that he capable of feeling. Doe's the little school of (mostly anonymous) Napier anti-biblical rigbrists re- %£ « *ll ° r a rCel ° r * strath£ W or a Highland fling as they regard a raffle for a painted piaqueT orSn??^ 1 ' a SoCial sc °Vrse,' ' a curse and a crime'? If.so.it would be interesting to- ] now the code of morals ' on which they base this fee* restriction to Christian liberty