CathInfo.com

So back to the topic at hand.

Ballet is defined as "an artistic dance form performed to music using precise and highly formalized set steps and gestures. Classical ballet, which originated in Renaissance Italy and established its present form during the 19th century, is characterized by light, graceful, fluid movements and the use of pointe shoes."

So by that definition is ballet immoral?

If you add the costumes, it's use (privately among only women to establish gracefulness or as performance), and the type of people involved, then you have different ideas.

Here is what AI said about the topic pre vatican 2

Pre-Vatican II (prior to 1962–1965) Catholic, decency standards were characterized by a strict, authoritative, and traditionalist approach to behavior, modesty, and sacred art
. The Church emphasized separation from worldly, secular influences and enforced high standards for modesty in dress and conduct, particularly in sacred spaces.
Key aspects of pre-Vatican II decency included:

• Modesty and Dress Code: Strict adherence to modesty was expected, often enforced by pastors and sometimes including the wearing of head coverings (veils) for women in church, a practice that has seen a resurgence in some groups.
• Sacred Art and Decorum: The Church actively regulated art and statues to prevent the display of images that lacked "proper decency and decorum," were of poor artistic quality, or could lead to "dangerous error".
• Moral and Cultural Separation: The Church generally advocated for separation from modern secular culture, with guidance to avoid "worldly" amusements.
• Liturgical Reverence: The atmosphere in churches was generally one of silence, passivity, and deep reverence, with a strong focus on the "majesty and inaccessibility" of God.
• Role of Authority: Decency standards were upheld by a, in some respects, authoritarian structure, where parishioners followed the direction of their priests in matters of faith and morals.

While some remember this era as a high point of piety, others note that it was a time with hidden, sometimes "authoritarian," pressures. The focus was on compliance with established rules, including abstinence from meat on Fridays and rigorous attendance at Mass.

Yes, I know AI has a bias that old fashion is bad.


Just google women's dress effect on men and look at the studies that are out there.  It will be eye opening.

I had lots of conversations with my husband on this topic and he says it is very hard these days to keep the custody of the eyes, because women don't care.  All of the sɛҳuąƖ harassment training is focused on how a man should speak to a woman, but not on how the dress of a woman distracts the man.  We need to keep all these things in mind.

If we are truly being the best Catholic, then we should be sacrificial in our love for our neighbor.  It means that us women should care to cover up more, not because the men want us to, but because we are nurturing and we see that it is hard for them, so we do it as a sacrifice because we love God first.

We don't live in a perfect world, so ballet is at the least imprudent.

I think I managed to strike what little is left of this dead horse.

What did young men and women do to meet in the past instead of dance?

They just talk to each other, have meaningful conversations about whatever. How else are you going to vet for marriage? The only dancing you should be doing is with your wife/husband.

I don’t need to communicate better.  I simply wrote the Truth of moral teaching on immodesty.  You explained it partially; I corrected you.  If you take offense, that’s on you.  Others would not take offense. 

You’re far too offended on this site.  You really need to take responsibility for being offended, if you decide to keep debating.  Insanity is to keep repeating the same action and expect a different result. 

I will tell you quite bluntly : just telling the truth without caring how others feel is going against charity. In the worst case, you could be committing a grave sin against charity.

As an example, imagine if a grandma only had 30 minutes left to live. Her grandson who is the most important person for her just died in a car accident. Should you tell her, so she dies in despair, or not say anything so that she can die in peace? In that case, charity teaches us, telling the truth is not necessary.

St Francis de Sales taught that, before you make a statement you should verify 3 things. 1)Is it true ? 2)Is it charitable? 3)Is it necessary?

You nailed 2 of the three. What you said is true, and what you said is necessary. Now, you need to care about how you are going to tell the truth to that person, to avoid being cruel to them or to avoid belittling them. 

Do you think Jesus or most Saints would talk like you do to others, even the most sinful? 

Of course, the principle of charity has limits. You do not have to walk on eggshells and be extremely prudent to avoid offending people who commit sinful actions. 

You should ask yourself this question : do you tell the truth because you want other people to be saved and not go to hell, or do you not care at all? If it's the former, then it is commendable, if it's the latter, then you lack charity. 

I myself am struggling with this issue and I lacked charity countless times. People who love the truth tend to have this kind of problem.