Also at issue is what St. Thomas is thinking of when it comes to "makeup" practices that were prevalent (or not so prevalent) in his day.

Well, there is one group of women that we know for sure would NEVER wear make-up to vainly try and attract men and attempt to distort the reality of what they truly look like.
In a sense, aren't they being truly honest and forthright?

Butch-type lesbians........ St Thomas?
( Sometimes their girlfriends, called lipstick lesbians do wear makeup-fancy that!)

For Ladislaus:


Alphonsus on St. Thomas (in agreement):

"Note, however, here what St. Thomas teaches in 2.2 qu 169, art. 2, where he says women desiring to please men from vanity only sin venally whenever they do it [Note that St. Alphonsus is saying that even St. Thomas believed this was venial sin].  But in his commentary on the first epistle to Timothy, chapter 2, the Angelic doctor so speaks: 'simple dress, with right intention, custom and condition of state preserved, is not a sin.  But with regard to make-up it is always a sin; for women are not permitted to be elegantly dressed except on account of men, and men refuse to be deceived, as a powdered woman would appear to him." (Vol. 1, p. 582)

Alphonsus then quotes the opinions of still more doctors:

"Azor, Lessius, and Bonacina excuse them from mortal sin [not venial] who by the custom of the place uncover half the breast, or use powder, makeup, or wigs; provided that they only intend greater adornment of beauty, not wantonness for others, without any other end that would be mortal..."

Add to this all the popes, fathers doctors, and saints writing against makeup in teh first few pages of this thread, and I am not sure why we are still having this discussion, lest it be simple obstinacy.

You don't sound like you live in a very affluent neighborhood.  :farmer:
.
Clean face, clean hands, clean hair, clean clothes ... this is basic hygiene and has nothing to do with vanity.

The situation is the new normal across the entire country, at least in the metropolitan areas. Obesity, poor grooming, complete disregard to one's appearance, that is. You even see this new normal of low standards portrayed in the media all the time. 

Matthew, could you please ban this idiot troll?

Unfortunately for you, that won't make St. Thomas's and St. Alphonsus's teaching go away.

No, I was just hoping that we'd be able to read it with reasonable font size.

Nor will your reposting it in larger fonts mean that you even understand it correctly.

If you can make "makeup is always a sin" mean "makeup is NOT always a sin," I stand ready to behold your wizardry!

If you can make "makeup is always a sin" mean "makeup is NOT always a sin," I stand ready to behold your wizardry!

I've already explained this twice, dimwit.  Please try reading the rest of the sentence where the reasoning is explained.  You're like the Prot who pulls a sentence fragment out of Scripture to justify a heresy.

bzzzt.  Having proportional reason, with proper intent, would make something non-sinful.  Take, for instance, a previous discussion regarding drug use by the moral theologian Jone.  Taking drugs without sufficient reason (i.e. just recreationally) that impairs one's higher faculties constitutes mortal sin.  But there's no sin (not even venial) if done for proportionate reason ... e.g. to relieve an extreme amount of pain.  So the proportionate reason renders it NON-sinful, and not merely venial.  In addition, lesser uses of drugs (including marijunana and others) would be venial sins ... unless there's a proportionate reason for their use to this degree (such as, he cites, to calm the nerves, etc.).  So the intention and proportionate reason (vs. the objective effect) can cause the action to go the full range from not sinful to mortal sin, and anywhere in between.

What part of "ALWAYS sinful" don't you get.  Maybe we need to bring the bigger font back?