On the Question of Liturgical Dancing

Bill Rutland

Dance as a mode of worship has recently become popular in the American Protestant Christianity, especially among the Evangelical and non-denominational sectors. There is much positive to say about liturgical dance, but there is also a large possibility of abuse. In an effort to make the Mass more relevant, some Catholic congregations have begun to incorporate dance into their worship. This is done with the purest of intentions, but we must pause to ask the question if it is liturgically correct.

The Vatican II Council stressed that the Mass is the prayer of the Church and therefore can not be changed on a local level:

Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority. (SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM; Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy; 23.3)

Because of the very nature of liturgical dance, we must ask if its introduction into the Mass constitutes a violation of the liturgical norms. Some see in Sacrosanctum Concililum license for liturgical dance when it states:

In matters which do not affect the faith or the well-being of an entire community, the Church does not wish, even in the Liturgy, to impose a rigid uniformity; on the contrary, she respects and fosters the genius and talents of various races and people. Whatever in their way of life is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error, she looks upon with benevolence and if possible keeps it intact, and sometimes even admits it into the Liturgy provided it accords with the genuine and authentic liturgical spirit. (SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM; Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy; 37.6)

Defenders of liturgical dance see its introduction into the Mass as meeting the criteria of "genuine and authentic liturgical spirit." Yet, dance in the American culture is clearly seen as secular in nature and therefore is a practice that should not be admitted into the liturgical worship of the western Church.

Others would argue that dance was an important part of praising God in the Old Testament. Yet a careful study of the Old Testament as well as Jewish history shows that even here dance was confined to outside of the liturgy.

Another argument for the incorporation of dance into the liturgy is that the Church has always accepted art as a legitimate form of worship and praise. Yet even here the Church has always drawn a distinction between the sacred and the secular. For instance it would not be appropriate to use Beethoven's Third Symphony in the Mass no matter how well it was performed. At issue is not the quality of the art, but the purpose.

The document Dance in the Liturgy issued by the Vatican's Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship ( a document which by its own terms should be considered as "an authoritative point of reference for every discussion on the matter.") gives two criteria that liturgical dance must meet to be a legitimate form of worship suitable for the Mass:

The first: to the extent in which the body is a reflection of the soul, dancing, with all its manifestations, would have to express sentiments of faith and adoration in order to become a prayer.

The second condition: just as all the gestures and movements found in the liturgy are regulated by the competent ecclesiastical authority, so also dancing as a gesture would have to be under its discipline. ( Liturgical Dance, Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship; 1975.)

This document then goes on to conclude that dance in the western culture does not meet these criteria:

However, the same criterion and judgment cannot be applied in the western culture.

Here dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses: such dancing, in general, is not pure.

For that reason it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever: that would be to inject into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements; and so it would be equivalent to creating an atmosphere of profaneness which would easily recall to those present and to the participants in the celebration worldly places and situations. (Ibid; Emphasis added.)

This document goes on the address classical dance such a ballet:

Neither can acceptance be had of the proposal to introduce into the liturgy the so-called artistic ballet because there would be presentation here also of a spectacle at which one would assist, while in the liturgy one of the norms from which one cannot prescind is that of participation. (Ibid.)

In essence, this says that because this type of dance precludes the whole congregation from participating, it would constitute a show and is therefore not appropriate for the Mass.

Some would argue that other cultures such as those in Africa incorporate dance into their worship, and therefore legitimizes liturgical dance as a valid for worship. In anticipation of this argument Dance in the Liturgy states that:

Therefore, there is a great difference in cultures: what is well received in one culture cannot be taken on by another culture.

The traditional reserve of the seriousness of religious worship, and of the Latin worship in particular, must never be forgotten. (Ibid.)

Dance in the Liturgy concludes by stating that even is liturgical dance were ever permitted, it must not be used in the Mass proper, and should never involve the priest:

If the proposal of the religious dance in the West is really to be made welcome, care will have to be taken that in its regard a place be found outside of the liturgy, in assembly areas which are not strictly liturgical. Moreover, the priests must always be excluded from the dance. (Ibid. Emphasis in the original.)

The prescriptions of Dance in the Liturgy were again upheld in 1994 in the Vatican document Instruction on the Roman Liturgy and Inculturation, a document that is universally binding on the Church:

Among some peoples, singing is instinctively accompanied by handclapping, rhythmic swaying, and dance movements on the part of the participants. Such forms of external expression can have a place in the liturgical actions of these peoples on condition that they are always the expression of true communal prayer of adoration, praise, offering and supplication, and not simply a performance (Instruction on Inculturation and the Roman Liturgy, 42; Emphasis added).

Some have seen in this document permission to include liturgical dance in the Mass. Yet in 1999 the diocese of Honolulu petitioned the Vatican to allow Hawaiian traditional dance as part of the Liturgy on the basis of Instruction on Inculturation and the Roman Liturgy. The Vatican’s answer was that the norms of the western Church as laid out in Dance in the Liturgy, does not allow dance as a part of the western Mass.

Other considerations having to do with societal norms must be recognized. Whereas liturgical dance is gaining popularity, dancing is still seen, in the west, as a secular activity. Therefore those who would introduce liturgical dance into the Mass, thinking that it is edifying are often surprised when it has the opposite result of scandal. Because of the sacredness of the Mass great care must be taken to avoid anything that would detract from that sacredness.

Another consideration is that dance by its very nature is exclusive. It is an action that involves the dancers only. Liturgical dance therefore reduces the general congregation to spectators which clearly flies in the face of the spirit of Vatican II. Dance puts the spotlight on the dancers and not on God where it belongs. Because of this its liturgical value is lost, no matter who well intentioned.

Therefore, however sincere the motives of those who would introduce liturgical dance into the Mass at any point, it is clearly prohibited by the Church. We must see liturgical dance as an illicit form of worship in the western Church and therefore unacceptable and inappropriate in the Mass. Catholics should recognize that the power of the Mass is not in its presentation, but in the sacrifice on the altar.