I think that there are only a very limited few forms of dance that do not violate Catholic modesty, and even that must be accompanied by modest dress.  Finally, even with these, it's inappropriate for someone who's already committed (a married person) to be paired up with someone other than his or her spouse, since there can be much more to immodesty than merely looking and touching.  There can be inappropriate emotional interaction, looks, facial expressions, etc.

IMO ... just avoid dance altogether.  There's very little benefit to that nonsense that isn't completely offset by the potential dangers.

I've also long felt that there's something unbecoming about frenetic physical activity.  Why?  Since it's a sitution where people are letting their bodies, and the rhythms that move their bodies effectively taken on a life of their own, where their bodily nature aren't directly subordinate to reason.  Where is reason involved when you're flailing around like that.  It's largely an unthinking type of endeavor.  I can't imagine either Our Lady or Our Lord dancing, ever, regardless of the type of dance, since it's beneath their dignity and unbecoming.  Just as it would be disedifying to see a priest or a nun dance ... despite the Novus Ordo turning such into celebrities, I think that all Catholics are called to be holy also, and while certain forms of dance may not be sinful, it's also undignified, i.e. beneath our dignity as temples of the Holy Ghost.

Voodoo, for instance, infamously entails getting into a frenzy as the result of frenetic body movement that puts them into an altered state of consciousness (combined also with some drugs) ... that then enable them to "get in touch" with dark entities.

I liken it to someone who, say, walks around farting and then laughing about it.  While not necessarily sinful, and perhaps venial at most, due to causing disedification, that too woudl be beneath the dignity of a Catholic who's trying to be holy.  Could we imagine a priest or nun walking around farting?

St. John Vianney famously refused absolution to those who continued to participate in dances, and those dances were far more modest than anything people tend to do today.

Remember the story of St Jean Vianney about the girl at a dance?

"The Scapular – A Powerful Weapon against the Devil

I think that there are only a very limited few forms of dance that do not violate Catholic modesty, and even that must be accompanied by modest dress.  Finally, even with these, it's inappropriate for someone who's already committed (a married person) to be paired up with someone other than his or her spouse, since there can be much more to immodesty than merely looking and touching.  There can be inappropriate emotional interaction, looks, facial expressions, etc.

IMO ... just avoid dance altogether.  There's very little benefit to that nonsense that isn't completely offset by the potential dangers.

I've also long felt that there's something unbecoming about frenetic physical activity.  Why?  Since it's a sitution where people are letting their bodies, and the rhythms that move their bodies effectively taken on a life of their own, where their bodily nature aren't directly subordinate to reason.  Where is reason involved when you're flailing around like that.  It's largely an unthinking type of endeavor.  I can't imagine either Our Lady or Our Lord dancing, ever, regardless of the type of dance, since it's beneath their dignity and unbecoming.  Just as it would be disedifying to see a priest or a nun dance ... despite the Novus Ordo turning such into celebrities, I think that all Catholics are called to be holy also, and while certain forms of dance may not be sinful, it's also undignified, i.e. beneath our dignity as temples of the Holy Ghost.

Voodoo, for instance, infamously entails getting into a frenzy as the result of frenetic body movement that puts them into an altered state of consciousness (combined also with some drugs) ... that then enable them to "get in touch" with dark entities.

I liken it to someone who, say, walks around farting and then laughing about it.  While not necessarily sinful, and perhaps venial at most, due to causing disedification, that too woudl be beneath the dignity of a Catholic who's trying to be holy.  Could we imagine a priest or nun walking around farting?

St. John Vianney famously refused absolution to those who continued to participate in dances, and those dances were far more modest than anything people tend to do today.

The dances St JV earned against were being used as an excuse for sɛҳuąƖ immorality. A bit like nightclubs and hook up culture. This cannot be compared to ballet. Your comparison of dancing and farting is ridiculous and makes me feel quite sad for you. 

You are really something else. As it was said already, her analogy was not excellent, it wasn't even accurate. Impurity unlike other sins is fought be FLEEING not active combat. It's not a case of a moderation like alcohol. The Saints teach this. Yet you ignore any real Catholic doctrine that goes against your bias.

Dancing with the opposite sex can cause people to think there is feelings when it's really just their heart rate from the exercise. It's not appropriate for those who are married to dance with other people, for those unmarried there is risk. A more chaste method is preferred to meeting spouses.

Since you are lukewarm God will begin to vomit you out of his mouth.

Your last sentence tells me a lot about you. Do you think it’s appropriate to use that imagery in connection with God, regardless of your opinion of me?

Saint John Vianney then explained to her that the young man was in fact the Devil in human form, and that the only reason why he would not dance with her was because she was wearing the holy Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel."

If the holy Cure had her remember that specific occasion during a general confession he must have considered her desire to dance a sin.

So ... I find this particular episode to be a bit of a stretch, since it's never indicated what the young lady's sin was ... just the desire to dance, or the desire to be chosen, or some desire toward the young man?  It's unclear.

He also could have reminded her of it as a didactic lesson, that it CAN lead to sin and to avoid it in the future, since not everything in Confession is just the matter of the Sacrament, as a Confessor will often give spiritual advice for the future.  Perhaps St. John Vianney foresaw her getting into trouble in the future on account of a dance, or perhahps the lesson he meant to impart is for her to always wear the Holy Scapular, since perhaps he foresaw an incident where she got into trouble for NOT wearing it.

We just can't read into this particular incident and don't have enough information, despite the author's "he must have considered".

I think there are other incidents that are more clear, where he refused absolution for those who had engaged in dancing.  Even then, we'd need to know whether he considered dancing per se to be sinful or if those individuals just happened to sin while they were dancing and the dancing constituted occasion of sin FOR THEM.

As dances were (and still are) a common way of meeting a future marriage partner the context is irrelevant. St John Visnney was warning her about getting involved with someone with bad intentions. As well as reminding her of the value of the scapular when worn. The fact the meeting was at a dance is irrelevant.

And your interpretation is also speculation, as if you can know this for certainty.  You're reading into it what you want to see here.  Before I saw this I wrote that this COULD BE a possible interpretation, but it also COULD BE that he considered it sinful.  While the author of this anecdote concluded that he considered it sinful per se, it COULD be something else that motivated him here.  There are other incidents I've read about in the past, however, which indicated that he did consider it sinful per se.  Now, that author did make a point that St. John Vianney strongly implied that SOMETHING sinful took place there, since in asking if she had forgotten something, this suggests there was a defect in the matter for the Confession, i.e. an omitted sin, presumably mortal? ... since there's no strict requirement to confess venial sins, although perhaps he was being more thorough with this person.  We just don't know is the point, and we don't have enough information, either for the author's conclusion, OR for yous.

You should honestly examine your conscience, about whether you have ulterior motivation for constantly advocating on behalf of the liceity of dancing.  It's not that one could not objectively come to the conclusion that certain forms of dancing are licit and moral, just that it's clear to us that you have some kind of ulterior motivation tending toward a certain conclusion that you want to be the case up front, and that kind of faulty emotion-driven begging-the-question reasoning can lead to false conclusions.

So you believe women shouldn’t ride bicycles? 🤣 This thread is becoming more ludicrous and entertaining by the minute.

((tell me you’re not married without telling me you’re not married))🤣🤣🤣🤣

So you're reading more into what he said and why he said it.  It is true even today that women's bicycles do not have the cross-beam there, assuming that they're wearing skirts while riding.

The Bible quote (which I am aware of) is completely different from YOU as a layperson telling another human being that G** will vomit me from His mouth. I didn’t want to use the two words in the same sentence as is vulgar. Hence the asterisks. Context is important.

Based on your posts I think you are either

a) a lukewarm fake 'Catholic'

Or 

b) an infiltrator