The Forums of Glennain

An interesting Judgment issued in the Court of the Archdiocese of Koronia in the impossibly well-staffed Church of Ascalon, from 2002:

Quote:Judgment in the Cause of Gabriel v. Hunter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gabriel v. Hunter

Dance, then, wherever you may be;
I am the Lord of the Dance said He,
And I'll lead you all, wherever you may be,
And I'll lead you all in the dance, said He.


This case was referred to the Chancery Court by Letters Rogatory from the Consistory Court of the Bishop of Besancon. Both parties submitted briefs to the Court and, no witnesses being presented, the Court had made its ruling based on said briefs.

The current cause revolves around dancers, or to be more specific, the use of liturgical dancers during the Divine Service. The defendant Reverend Calvin Hunter is accused of violating the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer by allowing liturgical dancers to perform during certain points in the service. Suit is brought by James Gabriel, a parishioner of the defendant’s church, St. Matthew-in-the-Woods. Defendant alleges that these actions are not prohibited by the Book of Common Prayer nor are they contrary to the Laws Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical of this Realm.

Despite the Court’s best efforts, no exact precedent can be found for a cause of this nature. It seems to me that liturgical dance is quite foreign to the tradition of the Church. St. Cesarius of Arles disapproved of the practice and there is little or no evidence for it within the tradition of Western Christianity. While some Syriac churches allow liturgical dancing, dancing in the West is not associated with the sacred; rather it is associated with love, lust, and the pleasures of the senses and is therefore it has not been deemed appropriate for inclusion in the solemnity of the Divine Service.

According to the articles against Mr. Hunter “the said defendant has in his church or chapel of St. Matthew-in-the-Woods sanctioned and permitted several members of the congregation to serve as liturgical dancers and allowed them to arise from the pews and dance during certain parts of the Divine Service, to wit the Gradual and during the Holy Communion.” The defendant does not contest that he employed liturgical dancers.

Mr. Gabriel alleges that the use of liturgical dancers is contrary to the Laws Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical of this Realm due to the fact that provision for them is not made in the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer and adherence to said rubrics is required by the Uniformity of Public Worship Act (1997). The defendant alleges that the use of liturgical dancers is permissible because there is nothing in the Book of Common Prayer forbidding the use of liturgical dancers. The defendant also cites the wearing of the chasuble, something not specifically permitted by the Uniformity Act, as evidence for the in favor of the use of liturgical dance.

The defendant’s argument against the plaintiff’s first contention seems to me to be an effort to, if I may use a very un-creative pun, dance around the law. The Uniformity of Public Worship Act states that “All priests within the Most Serene Empire shall adhere to the rites, ceremonies, and forms of prayer contained in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.” While it is true that there is nothing in the Book of Common Prayer against liturgical dancing, the ecclesiastical courts have held that the omission of a prohibition does not mean that a certain action is permitted (see Martin v. Mackonochie, Elphinstone v. Purchas as reported in the English Law Reports).

It is true that some practices not permitted by the Book of Common Prayer (and therefore not permitted by the Uniformity Act) have been allowed for general use. The wearing of the chasuble, however, is a matter completely separate from the issue of liturgical dancing. Defendant is correct when he states that the Uniformity Act does not require the priest to wear it, but he neglects to mention that a provision for its use was contained in the Vestments Measure (1999), passed by the House of Bishops and subsequently approved by the Conclave. This Measure states that “It shall not be an ecclesiastical offense to wear the chasuble while celebrating the Eucharist unless the Ordinary has forbidden it.” By this Measure (which has the force of an Act of the Conclave), the chasuble became a normal article of liturgical clothing and was generally recognized as a seemly addition to the worship of the Church. It is impossible, therefore, to draw a parallel between the authorization of the chasuble and liturgical dancing. The former has been permitted by Measure of the Church as a seemly addition to the worship of the Church; the latter has not.

There is, therefore, absolutely no authorization for the use of liturgical dancers in the Established Church and I must warn Mr. Hunter to put a stop to the practice within his church immediately or he will face sterner ecclesiastical discipline.

The plaintiff has requested that the Court order the defendant to pay the costs in this cause. Due to the relatively minor nature of the offense contained in these proceedings, I would ask to the parties to demonstrate Christian charity and each pay their own costs. No order is therefore made in regard to costs.

The Bishop of Kells comments:

We have one bishop and they have liturgical dancers! Ladies, if you ever tire of dancing in Ascalon, feel free to come and be bishops in Hanover.