"Old barns need paint."  ;D

I think I have a mixed view here:

It seems clear that excessive makeup is unanimously condemned (but what is “excessive?”);

It is POSSIBLE (BUT NOT CLEARLY THE CASE) that sparing use of makeup MIGHT be permitted (particularly if not visible?), though I can easily imagine many saints banning any use of it at all;

But PRESUMING slight use of makeup is permissible, I find the priest’s rationale in the OP very questionable: 

The idea that it is external and superficial beauty which makes the person a fit temple of the Holy Ghost (rather than the state of the person’s soul), is worldly and uncatholic.

If makeup made one a fit temple of the Holy Ghost, why have the convents never permitted cosmetics and even gin so far as to require the shaving of heads?  And by this same rationale, wouldn’t a beautiful slut be a more fit receptacle for the Holy Ghost than a homely Saint?

My wife and one of her friends were discussing the issue, and her friend opined that trad women need to look beautiful (again equating beauty in purely physical rather than spiritual terms, and suggesting nice grooming, hygiene, and clothing/dressing simply aren’t sufficient), or people will be put off by their perception of Catholics, and not want to join the Church.

That seems to be a similar argument to the one the priest is making.  But isn’t this really a repackaged version of the fundamental principle of Vatican II:

“We must adapt to the modern world, and meet it on its own ground, if we are to convert it?”

That strategy hasn’t exactly yielded good fruits!

And I hate to be rash or suspicious, but that seems so obvious to me that it is difficult to believe those contriving such arguments are really persuaded by them (self-justifying sophisms).

Maybe if the priest had left out the part about physical appearance making the person more fit to be a temple of the Holy Ghost, I would not have sling-shouted so far in the opposite direction, but it seems to me to be shocking worldliness and liberalism to think like that.  

He should have left that out, acknowledged many saints condemned cosmetics, gave a firmer warning against subtle vanity, stressed the inner spiritual aspect of true beauty, and then cautiously conceded makeup at home for the husband or to cover blemishes, etc?

But to wear it as fashion seems uncatholic (and condemned at Fatima as well).

Also, I think that those pics of the link are biased. They are not necessarily accurate with the differences of angle, situations, events, weight, etc. For example, from the link, this is probably the best looking woman in my opinion:



In the second picture, she looks more beautiful, but not because of the make up but simple because she is more slender.

This is a woman who looks good (as most + 8 in the beauty scale actually do), before and after make up.

I wish nobody would ever wear makeup but once it is allowed it becomes almost obligatory. It introduces massive fraud into the sɛҳuąƖ marketplace and when some women start wearing makeup all other women have to use it as well to compete unless they are willing to accept the fact that without makeup they will be seen as less desirable and will not be able to attract as good a husband.

I think if it is makeup that results in the attraction, you would draw a better husband without it (one with a more supernatural conception of love and beauty).

Thus far, ten pages of distortion, exaggeration, and general rubbish from probably just two or three Puritan trolls who appear to be channeling the mind-set of Salem, Massachusetts, circa 1693.

"Hey, Josiah! I hear you're taking Abigail Williams to the witch burning next Thursday. Wasn't that a great seven-hour sermon her father preached last Sunday on the evil of wearing insufficiently clean socks?"

Sound like some sour grapes got your panties in a bunch?

I wish nobody would ever wear makeup but once it is allowed it becomes almost obligatory. It introduces massive fraud into the sɛҳuąƖ marketplace and when some women start wearing makeup all other women have to use it as well to compete unless they are willing to accept the fact that without makeup they will be seen as less desirable and will not be able to attract as good a husband.

From my observation, it's mostly the plain women within the 6 and 7 categories who tend to abuse make - up. They feel the need to go to great lengths in order to attract a male. The use of heavy and extravagant make-up is a compensation for their lack of genuine beauty (and yes, I'm talking physical beauty). Because they're not repulsively ugly, they still hold some hope, so looking "sexy" or slutty is the only way of compiting against the truly beautiful women. They are able to draw some male attention; but obviously, it is not the kind of attention that a high - value, truly beautiful woman wants or expects.

Funny, I hear none of the former coming from the cosmetologists on this thread!

That's because it's not the point of contention here.  All Catholics acknowledge the supernatural aspects of marriage.