A month or so ago, a very contentious thread running over 30 pages and 10,000 views on the morality of makeup ran in this anonymous sub-forum.
Since then, not wanting to rely upon the opinions of laymen (good as some of the arguments seemed), I have had opportunity to ask several traditional priests, bishops, and religious about the issue.
My question was prefaced by noting St. Thomas's prohibition, except to please the husband or to hide disfigurement, and St. Alphonsus's statement that makeup was always a sin. I then asked whether they had ever studied these two saints on the subject of makeup, because I did not want to get an answer based on what passes for contemporary "common sense," but one based on doctrine.
Here were their responses:
1) SSPX Priest #1 (Referenced in the OP of the makeup thread): Light makeup is permissible, and even suitable to create a worthy temple for the Holy Ghost;
2) Resistance Priest #1: He cited the exception of St. Thomas regarding hiding disfigurement. When I responded with the question, "What about if she is just wearing it to accentuate beauty?," he responded: "Both things are the same in reality (in the concrete): ugliness (disfigurement) is a lack of beauty." Therefore this priest says light makeup is permissible.
3) SSPX Priest #2: Started by saying moderation in all things; had not directly studied the matter; when informed of the response of Resistance priest #1, he concurred with that opinion. Therefore this priest says light makeup is permissible.
4) Resistance Priest #2: "St Thomas is right, if you ask me. Judith used make up... so it must depend on the end and circuмstances. Object, End, Circuмstances." I take this response to mean that he opines makeup is not permissible, except for certain serious reasons.
5) Resistance Bishop #1: If two greats like Aquinas and Alphonsus disagree, there is room for disagreement. A factor must be in the question what has become common in the environment. In the USA cosmetics are heavily applied, especially by older women. Ugh ! Another factor certainly is a husband's wishes and/or needs. It is surely not illicit for a wife to use cosmetics to retain her husband's interest, but it it depended on her I think that abstinence would be more virtuous. Certainly to hell with vanity if that is what is motivating her. And if cosmetics are attracting other men, that makes abstinence from cosmetics something of a duty...Conclusion: "A gentle and quiet spirit" is the real treasure of a woman, and if she has it, she will not use cosmetics much, unless her husband needs them." I take this response to preclude makeup motivated by vanity (which is 90% of makeup use); he seems to allow for some disagreement, but only within the parameters between Aquinas (which allows a couple exceptions) and Alphonsus (who does not allow exceptions). He references environment (i.e., custom), but again precludes vanity as a motivator, so not sure how far custom gets anyone?
6) Resistance Religious Priest #1: "A woman using makeup out of concupiscence to attract men is a mortal sin; a slight use of makeup to please the husband, or because of a sickness is without sin (used for the husband, it is meritorious).
So, presuming I am understanding these responses properly:
-SSPX Priest #1 (i.e., the priest quoted in the OP of the other thread) had the only really unusual opinion, or rationale for his opinion, which was not shared by any of the rest.
-Basically, 2 SSPX priests and 1 Resistance priest found light makeup permissible, which was 50% of those consulted.
-1 Resistance Priest, 1 Resistance Religious Priest, and 1 Resistance Bishop seemed to limit makeup use to within the parameters of St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus.
-It is interesting that the SSPX tended to be more lax, and the Resistance tended to be more rigorous, though I'm not sure 3 respondants from each side suffices to infer a general opinion for either.
What do you all think?