I apologize, Pax.  He signed one of his posts "Pax" at the bottom (like Matthew sometimes does with an Anonymous post) .

No big deal, just want clarify that I’m not arguing with myself, since I posted earlier, haha

No, it's the other way around.  If even a middle class lady rolled out of bed, didn't wash her face or do her hair, didn't put on makeup, and went out in sweat pants and a sweat shirt, her appearance would be that of a low-class person.  You groom and put on makeup.  Women who see other women without makeup consider them to be low class ... as if they were wearing sweat pants.

I'm not surprised that some women who frequently wear makeup would look down on those who don't. It's one of the usual problems of vanity, referred to by some as "female pride". If you see someone not wearing makeup as "low class", that's probably a pretty good indication that your own motives for wearing makeup are not in line with St. Thomas' exceptions.

This has been an interesting thread. I've enjoyed reading the discussion (minus the obnoxious all caps repeating the same thing over and over).

Ladislaus, you mentioned some husband's insisting that their wives wear makeup. That's just hard for me to wrap my mind around. It seems disordered to me, for a Catholic husband to insist on it. I could see it being completely normal in today's fallen society from a non-christian viewpoint.

What are your thoughts on that? Is a Catholic husband justified in insisting that his wife wear makeup?

My understanding of this quote of St. Augustine (quoted by St. Thomas) is that a husband can allow his wife to wear makeup, but can not order her to do so.

Reply to Objection 2. Cyprian is speaking of women painting themselves: this is a kind of falsification, which cannot be devoid of sin. Wherefore Augustine says (Ep. ccxlv ad Possid.): "To dye oneself with paints in order to have a rosier or a paler complexion is a lying counterfeit. I doubt whether even their husbands are willing to be deceived by it, by whom alone" (i.e. the husbands) "are they to be permitted, but not ordered, to adorn themselves." However, such painting does not always involve a mortal sin, but only when it is done for the sake of sensuous pleasure or in contempt of God, and it is to like cases that Cyprian refers.

http://newadvent.org/summa/3169.htm#article2

I've read through much of the discussion but not all as the thread has grown quite long.

Me too!
But, as they tire of repeating themselves, it does give me a chance to catch up. : )
.
From what I've read, the two main players here both accept that makeup may be worn to conceal a disfigurement. Practically speaking, this would likely involve some type of skin covering without regard to the coloring of lips or eyes.
.
I'm not certain why the primary anonymous poster in this thread doesn't also allow for the motive of pleasing one's husband that he may not fall into adultery. I thought they'd acknowledged the lawful use of makeup when with your spouse, but then later seemed to back away from that position. Perhaps they'd like to articulate just that point.
.
Nonetheless, apart from outright ignoring the numerous quotes provided in this thread and focusing on the single one that disagrees, there seems to be only these two categories of potential use of makeup without sin. Obviously, this would outright exclude anyone who is not either presently married or seeking a husband.

One thing that didn’t receive much attention from the OP was that the poster took exception to the priest's suggestion that a woman wearing makeup was more fit to be a temple of the Holy Ghost than one who was not wearing makeup.

According to that principle, the SAME woman with makeup is more fit than without.

What the priest was saying was likening a certain amount of makeup to be in the category of simple grooming.  You hear the same kind of thing said, even by St. Thomas regarding general grooming ... that looking comported and put together and clean and neat are outward expressions of the dignity that our bodies have as members of the Body of Christ, whereas looking like a slob has the contrary effect.  I believe, as the priest in the OP implies as well, that a certain degree and amount of makeup use is just an extension of grooming, whereas if you cross a certain line, then it takes on more the aspect of cosmetic use.  But, like nearly all things related to moral theology, there are often some fuzzy lines ... depending on lots of factors and circuмstances, and the subjective intentions ... and even societal norms (such as would according to most of these theologians excuse even revealing part of the breast).  We like to have things black and white like they often are in dogmatic theology outside of disputed questions.  Yet moral theology rarely lends itself to such neatness.

St. Thomas often used the per modum (under the aspect of) distinction.  And I think it would apply here.

Certain amount of makeup under the aspect of grooming (per modum of grooming), not a sin.  Certain amount of makeup per modum of cosmetic attractiveness, can be sinful if certain circuмstances aren't in play.  Unless you follow Cajetan, and then even a certain amount of cosmetic use to enhance attractiveness and femininity are without sin.

This fuzziness in the moral realm is why putting out absolute ultimatums like "all women who wear makeup are veritable harlots" and "parents who don't home school are committing grave sin" are meaningless and even harmful when the context is not understood.  WHY is someone wearing makeup (they have bad acne? or to please their husbands more as the wife ages so they don't stray? [an act of charity]) or WHY is someone not homeschooling (both parents need to work to make ends meet) ... those are all RELEVANT in moral theology, so the application of moral theology is best left to a spiritual director who knows the circuмstances involved in each case.

The fact that moral theologians excused women showing part of their chest was super surprising to me.  This changed my whole perception of this debate (even though, even at first, I still thought that make-up wearing was a trivial matter, compared to other things).  It changed my perception because i've come to realize that the Church makes all kinds of exceptions due to the (almost) inexhaustible scenarios in which human societies interact with morality.  It makes one wonder why God created us all to be so different, if He knew that the debates/situations of morality would become so complex.  We could've all been just as completely different, personality-wise, except for this area (i.e. He could've created everyone to agree on what is right vs wrong, even on the venial sin level).  However, as history has proven, it's the exact opposite.  There's much debate and it's highly complex.  Why is that?  What is the purpose of God in allowing that?  I find it a fascinating question.

I think the variation is precisely because people are so different, and because moral theology has so much of subjective aspect to it ... regarding motivations, intentions, circuмstances, and effects.  So, for instance, something might cause a temptation for one person and have no effect on someone else.  One person might have circuмstances that justify some action, while another does not.  And then there's other blurriness.  So, for instance, "working" on Sunday.  What might be work to one person (gardening work for a professional) might be recreation to another (amateur gardener).  Theologians lay out a rule of thumb that if you work for 2 hours on Sunday, it's a mortal sin.  But it's just a line.  What if I work for 1 hour and 59 minutes, or 2 hours and 1 minute.  With 2 minutes of work it goes from venial to mortal?  They draw these lines because you have to have SOME standards, but they're often a bit arbitrary.

I'm quite certain there is a difference between wearing makeup specifically to look seductive/sexy and get mens' attentions, and wearing makeup to perhaps cover up blemishes or to simply look good. Is looking good bad? Why then do men shave, comb hair, get nice haircuts, iron wrinkles out of clothes, polish shoes, brush teeth, etc? Also, there were fathers who considered shaving the face a sin.... Just sayin'