Found this quote attributed to Tertullian, but no citation (or whether this was said during his orthodox or heretical period): "For those women sin against God when they rub their skin with ointments, stain their cheeks with rouge, and make their eyes prominent with antimony. To them, I suppose, the artistic skill of God is displeasing!"This quote very nearly approximated that attributed to Jerome above it; wondering is someone got their citations/attributions mixed up?
Definition of "Lipstick" and its origin and historical use:Dear Moderator: Upon firther reflection, perhaps I should not have even posted this edited definition. It might leads minds into dangerous territory. At the moment I thought it was necessary to expose the origin of lip stick. Now I am afraif I will be the cause of sin for having done so. Is there any way to delete this?
a.) A cosmetic applied to the lips of a female; usually. Its use was developed in ancient times by prostitutes as a form of advertisement, by painting their lips to match [edited], so the male customer would get a glimpse of what he was getting. Lipstick was, then, various shades of red and pink...
How many women realize this as they "tastefully" apply just a little bit of "lip stick?"
Pope St. Gregory the Great preaches against the use of cosmetics in his praise of St. Gorgonia (372):Of her, he says (at the link above): "Pencillings and pigments, she left to women of the stage and of the streets."
https://books.google.com/books?id=eOVkcqmS_okC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=saints+catholic+condemn+cosmetics&source=bl&ots=BEr_CYCOxw&sig=ACfU3U3n9fvFvjIgnOXq4pkHhpb4URra8g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiD4Pvp7oLgAhUWo4MKHXa2DvA4ChDoATABegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=saints%20catholic%20condemn%20cosmetics&f=false
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Now get out of this house, for no chaste[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]nor, I would add, stain her cheeks, nor paint her eyes. Unawares the poor wretches destroy their own beauty, by the introduction of what is spurious. At the dawn of day, mangling, racking, and plastering themselves over with certain compositions, they chill the skin, furrow the flesh with poisons, and with curiously prepared washes, thus blighting their own beauty. Wherefore they are seen to be yellow from the use of cosmetics, and susceptible to disease, their flesh, which has been shaded with poisons, being now in a melting state. So they dishonour the Creator of men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), as if the beauty given by Him were nothing worth. As you might expect, they become lazy in housekeeping, sitting like painted things to be looked at, not as if made for domestic economy. Wherefore in the comic poet the sensible woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) says, What can we women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) do wise or brilliant, who sit with hair dyed yellow, outraging the character of gentlewomen; causing the overthrow of houses, the ruin of nuptials, and accusations on the part of children? In the same way, Antiphanes the comic poet, in Malthaca, ridicules the meretriciousness of women (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) in words that apply to them all, and are framed against the rubbing of themselves with cosmetics, saying:—[/color]
Woman ought to make her hair yellow,[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]She comes,[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Thrice, I say, not once, do they deserve to perish, who use crocodiles' excrement, and anoint themselves with the froth of putrid humours, and stain their eyebrows with soot, and rub their cheeks with white lead.[/color]
She goes back, she approaches, she goes back.
She has come, she is here, she washes herself, she advances,
She is soaped, she is combed, she goes out, is rubbed,
She washes herself, looks in the glass, robes herself,
Anoints herself, decks herself, besmears herself;
And if anything is wrong, chokes [with vexation].[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]For first, in comparison with gain and the spoiling of neighbours,[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]I set these quotations from the comic poets before you, since the Word most strenuously wishes to save us. And by and by I will fortify them with the divine Scriptures (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/index.html). For he who does not escape notice is wont to abstain from sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), on account of the shame of reproof. Just as the plastered hand and the anointed eye exhibit from their very look the suspicion of a person in illness, so also cosmetics and dyes indicate that the soul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm) is deeply diseased.[/color]
All else is in their eyes superfluous.
Is one of them little? She stitches cork into her shoe-sole.
Is one tall? She wears a thin sole,
And goes out keeping her head down on her shoulder:
This takes away from her height. Has one no flanks?
She has something sewed on to her, so that the spectators
May exclaim on her fine shape behind. Has she a prominent stomach?
By making additions, to render it straight, such as the nurses we see in the comic poets,
She draws back, as it were, by these poles, the protuberance of the stomach in front.
Has one yellow eyebrows? She stains them with soot.
Do they happen to be black? She smears them with ceruse.
Is one very white-skinned? She rouges.
Has one any part of the body beautiful? She shows it bare.
Has she beautiful teeth? She must needs laugh,
That those present may see what a pretty mouth she has;
But if not in the humour for laughing, she passes the day within,
With a slender sprig of myrtle between her lips,
Like what cooks have always at hand when they have goats' heads to sell,
So that she must keep them apart the while, whether she will or not.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]He that judged the goddesses,[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]O adulterous beauty! Barbarian finery and effeminate luxury overthrew Greece; Lacedæmonian chastity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03637d.htm) was corrupted by clothes, and luxury, and graceful beauty; barbaric display proved (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) Jove's daughter a courtesan.[/color]
As the myth of the Argives has it, having come from Phrygia
To Lacedæmon, arrayed in flowery vestments,
Glittering with gold and barbaric luxury,
Loving, departed, carrying away her he loved,
Helen, to the folds of Ida, having found that
Menelaus was away from home.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]The barbarian plains drink noble blood,[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Breasts are beaten in lamentations, and grief desolates the land; and all the feet, and the summits of many-fountained Ida, and the cities of the Trojans, and the ships of the Achæans, shake.[/color]
And the streams of the rivers are choked with dead bodies.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Touch not the reins, inexperienced boy,[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm) delights in two charioteers, by whom alone the chariot of fire is guided. For the mind is carried away by pleasure; and the unsullied principle of reason, when not instructed by the Word, slides down into licentiousness, and gets a fall as the due reward of its transgression. An example of this are the angels (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm), who renounced the beauty of God for a beauty which fades, and so fell from heaven to earth.[/color]
Nor mount the seat, not having learned to drive.[/color]
I believe light makeup is appropriate and even counter-revolutionary. We can't forget the virtue of urbanity and trying to be pleasing to others in our appearance. However, there is a difference between dressing well and using some makeup, and being vain or making your true appearance indiscernible.That’s the gαyest thing I ever heard.
This is my favorite part:An admirable admission of womanly vanity and guilt, but terrible resolution:
For first, in comparison with gain and the spoiling of neighbours,
All else is in their eyes superfluous.
Is one of them little? She stitches cork into her shoe-sole.
Is one tall? She wears a thin sole,
And goes out keeping her head down on her shoulder:
This takes away from her height. Has one no flanks?
She has something sewed on to her, so that the spectators
May exclaim on her fine shape behind. Has she a prominent stomach?
By making additions, to render it straight, such as the nurses we see in the comic poets,
She draws back, as it were, by these poles, the protuberance of the stomach in front.
Has one yellow eyebrows? She stains them with soot.
Do they happen to be black? She smears them with ceruse.
Is one very white-skinned? She rouges.
Has one any part of the body beautiful? She shows it bare.
Has she beautiful teeth? She must needs laugh,
That those present may see what a pretty mouth she has;
But if not in the humour for laughing, she passes the day within,
With a slender sprig of myrtle between her lips,
Like what cooks have always at hand when they have goats' heads to sell,
So that she must keep them apart the while, whether she will or not.[/col[/font]or[/size]
Guess I'm guilty as charged!
I have to admit, at home I don't wear any make-up most of the time. But when we go out in public, say to eat as a married couple, I'll wear eye-makeup and blush. Why?
"OH Vanity, they name is woman!"
But if one does it out of all innocence, is it a sin?
I think I'll let God sort it out, and continue to focus on eradicating worse faults.
Pretty sure men knew what they were getting with or without lipstick.That has nothing to do with the reason whores invented it, which was explained.
It's not rocket science.
If we're to extend the sin of vanity far enough that it covers all make-up, would it not also apply to men who dress-up too? Isn't a bit of light make-up just the equivalent of a man shaving or slicking back his hair? And it condemns women wearing dresses designed to make them look thinner, but men's suits are also very carefully measured and fitted to achieve similar effects too.Except that, while many popes, doctors, and saints of the Church have condemned makeup, I am unaware of any of them ever having condemned mens formalwear (quite the opposite actually.
So while yes of course heavy make-up is immodest, vain and the uniform of prostitutes, if we're to expect our wives and daughters to follow these condemnations then we ought to think about their ramifications for us men too.
Except that, while many popes, doctors, and saints of the Church have condemned makeup, I am unaware of any of them ever having condemned mens formalwear (quite the opposite actually.Corrected above.
The better comparison would be the opposite of what you describe: Men wearing bermuda shorts, tank tops and t-shirts in public, or going shirtless while mowing the grass, and the like. This has been condemned many times by the Church as immodest.
I think your problem is that you have been conned into thinking that makeup is somehow formal, rather than slutty, adn this is why you want to make the inappropriate analogy between womens makeup and mens formalwear (and hygiene).
Your anology simply misses, and the proof of it is that there is no Church, saint, doctor, or papal support for it, but on the contrary, there is muchendorsementcondemnation of it: The exact opposite as the case of cosmetics.
So we should be content with how God made us even if nature threw in a few defects or wasn't so kind.You don't really have any idea what you are talking about, do you?
Children born limbless should be denied artificial limbs?
Children born with a hair lip shouldn't be allowed to have it fixed?
People with hair loss shouldn't be allowed to wear a wig?
Because prostitutes and whores slather on makeup no one should use it as it's the whores territory?
Fat people over eat so no one else should eat?
If you look good you feel good and if you feel good you do good.
If make up is all you have to worry about you have been abundantly blessed!
I found this quote online from St. Cyprian (and affirmed by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa) which has me rethinking the whole matter entirely:
(. . .)
(Quoted by St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, in the Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 169, Art. 2)
What do you guys think about the morality of women wearing ANY MAKEUP AT ALL?
I answer that, As regards the adornment of women, we must bear in mind the general statements made above (Article 1) concerning outward apparel, and also something special, namely that a woman's apparel may incite men to lust, according to Proverbs 7:10, "Behold a woman meeteth him in harlot's attire, prepared to deceive souls."
Nevertheless a woman may use means to please her husband, lest through despising her he fall into adultery. Hence it is written (1 Corinthians 7:34) that the woman "that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Wherefore if a married woman adorn herself in order to please her husband she can do this without sin.
But those women who have no husband nor wish to have one, or who are in a state of life inconsistent with marriage, cannot without sin desire to give lustful pleasure to those men who see them, because this is to incite them to sin. And if indeed they adorn themselves with this intention of provoking others to lust, they sin mortally; whereas if they do so from frivolity, or from vanity for the sake of ostentation, it is not always mortal, but sometimes venial. And the same applies to men in this respect. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ccxlv ad Possid.): "I do not wish you to be hasty in forbidding the wearing of gold or costly attire except in the case of those who being neither married nor wishful to marry, should think how they may please God: whereas the others think on the things of the world, either husbands how they may please their wives, or wives how they may please their husbands, except that it is unbecoming for women though married to uncover their hair, since the Apostle commands them to cover the head." Yet in this case some might be excused from sin, when they do this not through vanity but on account of some contrary custom: although such a custom is not to be commended.
Reply to Objection 1. As a gloss says on this passage, "The wives of those who were in distress despised their husbands, and decked themselves that they might please other men": and the Apostle forbids this. Cyprian is speaking in the same sense; yet he does not forbid married women to adorn themselves in order to please their husbands, lest the latter be afforded an occasion of sin with other women. Hence the Apostle says (1 Timothy 2:9): "Women . . . in ornate [Douay: 'decent'] apparel, adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire": whence we are given to understand that women are not forbidden to adorn themselves soberly and moderately but to do so excessively, shamelessly, and immodestly.
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.
It must, however, be observed that it is one thing to counterfeit a beauty one has not, and another to hide a disfigurement arising from some cause such as sickness or the like. For this is lawful, since according to the Apostle (1 Corinthians 12:23), "such as we think to be the less honorable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honor."
(. . .)
The answer you seek is from the same article of the Summa.Aside from noting this was already covered way back in the 2nd post of the thread, presuming you chose St. Thomas over the other doctors mentioned, you would only have gained the liberty to wear makeup in the home, since one could not wear it in public and still claim that it was "just for my husband," knowing how many others will also view it.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3169.htm#article2
I’m not going to stop wearing make up. Why? Because I have a duty to look good for my husband. I have a duty to show my daughters to care for their appearance, and for my son to not lower his standards to someone who doesn’t put effort into her looks. I have always loved doing, and wearing make up... and it’s an art form these days. My make up box would make the men here cringe... and let me tell you something else my blue lipstick matches nothing, and neither doesn’t my dark purple, and for that matter my natural pinks. It looks nothing like the colors of a certain part of women. Vain? No. I just actually care about my appearance, making my husband proud(what’s worse Than a wife with a yucky tired face?) and doing my make up is my self care time. It makes me feel cleaned up, proper, and ready to take on the day.Did you make all this up yourself, or did you just have a lot of barbie dolls as a youngster?
I’m not going to stop wearing make up. Why? Because I have a duty to look good for my husband. I have a duty to show my daughters to care for their appearance, and for my son to not lower his standards to someone who doesn’t put effort into her looks. I have always loved doing, and wearing make up... and it’s an art form these days. My make up box would make the men here cringe... and let me tell you something else my blue lipstick matches nothing, and neither doesn’t my dark purple, and for that matter my natural pinks. It looks nothing like the colors of a certain part of women. Vain? No. I just actually care about my appearance, making my husband proud(what’s worse Than a wife with a yucky tired face?) and doing my make up is my self care time. It makes me feel cleaned up, proper, and ready to take on the day.
Can more people who aren't anonymous please reply?I tried but even though I clicked the tick box it came up as anonymous.
I tried but even though I clicked the tick box it came up as anonymous.That happens if you decide to modify after you publish. If you don't the box on the modification as well, it comes up anonymous.
You are a very superficial person and if your husband desires of your makeup then he doesn't love you nearly as much as you think. the example you two provide to your children is harming their souls.
Beauty is not who you are on the outside, it is the wisdom and time you gave away to save another struggling soul like you.Right, then why should men shave or dress well? You don't *need* to shave or *need* to wear a well-fitted suit.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2015/09/02/top-7-bible-verses-about-vanity/
Last paragraph:
"Egotism, narcissism, pride and vanity all keep the focus of our lives on ourselves and on our own looks, money, and accomplishments. This, however, is very shallow and meaningless in the end. Our life matters so much more when we put God in the center and do things his way. Then all of our insecurities and doubts are dismissed in the greater context of the true meaning of life."
Right, then why should men shave or dress well? You don't *need* to shave or *need* to wear a well-fitted suit.
And why keep a tidy home? Is that not just vanity in one's home? Do you really NEED to paint your walls? It's just appearance after all.
My point is, clearly there's a difference between trying to look nice and presentable and trying to look like a prostitute.
Right, and that was my point also. Each woman of course has to be on alert against vanity ... but that's something for the individual to work out with her spiritual director. But women by nature want to look good, so there's often a very fine line between the simple natural urge and vanity.Hygiene and grooming should not be confounded with cosmetics.
Hygiene and grooming should not be confounded with cosmetics.
They are not at all the same.
They most certainly can be. Depending on how it's done, cosmetics and grooming can have the same intent and the same outcome, and consequently they're morally equivalent.Whatever the subjective intent in cosmetics application may be, it is still objectively different than grooming and hygiene:
Whatever the subjective intent in cosmetics application may be, it is still objectively different than grooming and hygiene:
By the latter is understood any of the following: Bathing, cutting or combing hair, shaving, cutting nails, wearing proper attire, etc.
These practices are how a civilized and Catholic person presents their best self to the world:
There is nothing artificial added.
Cosmetics, on the other hand, present purely artificial enhancement or masking techniques which always imply a desire to present a false self to the world.
The difference between grooming and hygiene on the one hand, and cosmetic use on the other, could not be clearer.
I almost get the sense that some have confounded the two because of long years of acceptance (ie., after my shower, I put on my makeup, therefore it is all hygiene/grooms no), or, in desiring to make the two equivalent (and therefore permissible), seek to blur the distinction.
I'm talking about the moral equivalency. So now everything artificial is intrinsically evil? Interesting that never comes up in the treatments of cosmetics by St. Thomas and the Church Fathers; they're speaking solely in terms of their effect and their intent (an incitement to impurity).Nobody but you has introduced the issue of intrinsic evil into the equation, meaning you are debating with yourself there (probably as a tactic to draw attention away from the distinction between hygiene/grooming and cosmetics application).
A secretary going to work and covering up some acne scars or a birthmark with concealer or foundation is clearly not going out of her way to be sɛҳuąƖly provocative.
Some people lack common sense. They gravely lack it.
This makes absolute sense to me.Subjective intention will bear upon moral culpability, but not upon the objective reality of the act.
The effect any action is intended to have must be considered.
A secretary going to work and covering up some acne scars or a birthmark with concealer or foundation is clearly not going out of her way to be sɛҳuąƖly provocative.
Likewise these Russian dancers are wearing make-up in order to look the same for reasons that aid the artistic performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQkmqK5U5Uo
Anyone notice the sour turn/tenor this thread took once Ladislaus got involved?Really...? I think he’s the only gentleman among the men.
Compare the first several pages with those after he arrived.
Really...? I think he’s the only gentleman among the men..
Anyone notice the sour turn/tenor this thread took once Ladislaus got involved?
Compare the first several pages with those after he arrived.
Maybe its analogous to men wearing tank-tops: If the Missus likes me to flex my pythons around the house for her viewing pleasure (lol), I would be allowed to do so (?), but I certainly could not go to the Walmart like that, because it would be an occasion to sin for all the women 8) (i.e., I could not go out in public looking like that, and still maintain that it was "only for my wife")?
So many on this thread agree it's OK to wear makeup at home to please one's husband.More or less an admission that the REAL reason women want to wear makeup is for sex appeal.
Does that mean that men like women who wear makeup?
If so that's why women do it!
Think back to when young people were looking for a spouse.
If the girl didn't look a little attractive the guy never gave her a second look much less
took the time to get to know her.
More or less an admission that the REAL reason women want to wear makeup is for sex appeal.
Sad (but revealing) to see this degree of worldliness so prevalent among trades.
More or less an admission that the REAL reason women want to wear makeup is for sex appeal.When my wife meets up with her married Russian girlfriends in some European city they dress up in their latest finery, swap clothes, wear make-up and all complement each other on how young they still look, drink champagne and then go back to their hotel and chat.
Sad (but revealing) to see this degree of worldliness so prevalent among trades.
When my wife meets up with her married Russian girlfriends in some European city they dress up in their latest finery, swap clothes, wear make-up and all complement each other on how young they still look, drink champagne and then go back to their hotel and chat.
I think women have far wider interests in make-up and clothes than simply seeing how many men's heads they can turn.
That's not what she said. She said that NOT wearing makeup becomes an obstacle for men even stopping to take the time to get to know them. And, sadly, she's right. Lots of Trad men would ignore the women without makeup and gravitate towards the ones who wear it ... even while bloviating the entire time about how wearing makeup is a sin.Exactly what I am lamenting:
It's almost like the sports players who feel they need to take steroids to compete, even if they don't want to, because everyone else is using them ... and that puts them at a competitive disadvantage.
It's always a good idea to function in the real world, how it is, not how we would like it to be.
You may suggest we deserve to live in neighbourhoods without thieves and rapists, but until we do, which will be never, I am not talking my locks of the doors and windows.
I have long suggested to men who are struggling to find someone to marry that they lower their sights in the looks department and raise them in the moral character department.
Eventually many men do. I know lots of men who chased 9s, refused to date 7s and ended up marrying a 5 or 6. Had they been smarter earlier they could have snagged a 7.
Like the basement discount store don't take too long to make your mind up because someone else will grab it.
Oh, absolutely, MOST of the time women wear their makeup to look good among their LADY friends. They're more concerned about what other WOMEN think of them than what men think. Why? Well, it's because women can be ruthless: "Hey, Becky, did you see how haggard and ugly Joann looked? She really needs to wear makeup."Absolutely correct! It could just as well go: I think Susie should take some lessons on how to apply her makeup. Did you see how it was plastered?
I bet 99% of the people here railing against makeup are not married. When you get married, you start to understand more and more how women think.
Most of these anti-makeup posters are taking some random saint quote out of context. You have to look at these quotes based on history and what was going on at the time, because most likely, these saints were talking about a VERY specific problem; they weren't being anti-makeup in general. If the Church is truly against makeup, then you wouldn't have to go back to the middle ages (or longer) to find a quote condemning the practice. I can go find a sermon from last week talking about the evils of drunkeness or infidelity. Because priests OF EVERY AGE have to condemn such things. If there's no consistant condemnation of makeup, then that's a sign that the use is conditional and only wrong under some circuмstances.According to that sophistic principle (ie., The Church is not against anything it hasn’t condemned recently), the Church would not be against donation, Pelagianism, Albigensianism, usury, Nestorianism, etc., and would by the same false principle be forced into perpetually repeating all its condemnations lest one presume that which was condemned is now permitted.
I don't care HOW good-looking someone is, after a relatively brief time, the looks wear off and you start to see the person underneathThis is true. But how do you spend a relatively brief period of time with a woman in order to see the person underneath.
Most of these anti-makeup posters ....
....I never think about applying makeup to please my husband, either at home or when going out. ....
.I am the same way when walking around the lake with my wife:
I think of makeup as part of looking my best. I won't always put it on around the house, but if my husband is taking me to a nice restaurant for my birthday, I'll wear makeup along with dressing nicely to please him. I also try to wear it on Sundays as part of my "Sunday best", whereas on other days, if I'm running behind, I might not have any, or not much. I also try to keep it as natural looking as possible. I figure it's an act of charity to everyone when I'm wearing it, to look nicer for them, and if I don't have time to put some on, they have to offer it up when they look at me! :laugh1: Also, in these days, Trad Catholic women can get criticized for the Little House on the Prairie look if we don't at least follow the customs of our times (while still dressing modestly & in a dignified manner), which includes wearing some amount of makeup, within reason, rather than looking like the Amish.
.Right on sister!
I think of makeup as part of looking my best. I won't always put it on around the house, but if my husband is taking me to a nice restaurant for my birthday, I'll wear makeup along with dressing nicely to please him. I also try to wear it on Sundays as part of my "Sunday best", whereas on other days, if I'm running behind, I might not have any, or not much. I also try to keep it as natural looking as possible. I figure it's an act of charity to everyone when I'm wearing it, to look nicer for them, and if I don't have time to put some on, they have to offer it up when they look at me! :laugh1: Also, in these days, Trad Catholic women can get criticized for the Little House on the Prairie look if we don't at least follow the customs of our times (while still dressing modestly & in a dignified manner), which includes wearing some amount of makeup, within reason, rather than looking like the Amish.
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]“She encouraged women to be exceptional at a time when the world disparaged nonconformity and hated it for women.”
Cindy Crawford is another one for me. Like, yuck, maybe a "2". :)Well Cindy Crawford has a relatively masculine face(especially these days now that it's more gaunt), so it really is no wonder your wife thinks she looks better than you do. People are often very bad at judging the attractiveness of their own gender.
Sometimes my wife will ask me, "Don't you think she's pretty?" and most of the time I say, "no, not really" and she'd be shocked. She would think that some woman is breathtakingly beautiful and she'd be wondering how it was possible that I didn't agree. And she knows that I am always honest with her.
I seem to recall Archbishop Sheen saying on one of his shows something like this:Was that before or after he accepted Vatican II and the new Mass?
A woman came up to me the other day and asked me whether or not it was alright for her to wear makeup, to which I replied, "please do".
;D
How a [Jєωess] Makeup Mogul Liberated Women by Putting Them in a Pretty New Cage (https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/how-a-makeup-mogul-liberated-women-by-putting-them-in-a-pretty-new-cage/)Uh-oh, you done said the Jєωs conned women into makeup.
By Lisa Hix (https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/lisa-hix/)— June 24th, 2015
(https://d3h6k4kfl8m9p0.cloudfront.net/uploads/2015/06/HR_salon_scientist_girlboss_OB-DI438_tvhele_G_20090319215738.jpg)
When Caitlyn Jenner made her debut on the July 2015 cover of “Vanity Fair” in full old-Hollywood glamour mode, her highly styled appearance triggered discussion and debate: After all, not every woman has the money to, or even wants to, embody that particular ideal of feminine beauty, which involves elaborate foundation makeup to create shimmery highlights and contoured cheeks. Fifty years after the women’s lib movement railed against makeup, we’re still deeply conflicted about the stuff. Is it a tool for oppression—a way to force women to conform to certain standards meant to please or seduce men? Is makeup empowering women, especially trans women like Caitlyn, to express their identities? Or does the culture of makeup give women more work to do, by making them ashamed of the faces they wake up with?[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
In the Victorian and Edwardian periods, respectable Western middle-class society condemned regular use of makeup, which was thought of as something only stage actors and prostitutes used. (Although some women probably dabbled in light makeup behind closed doors to fake the flawless bloom of youth.) In the 1910s, though, women in the suffrage movement (https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/war-on-women-waged-in-postcards-memes-from-the-suffragist-era/) wore bright red lipstick as an act of defiance. Helena Rubinstein—an early global female entrepreneur who began selling cold cream at her first beauty salon in Australia in 1902—jumped at this opportunity to create a mass market that never existed before: She championed makeup as a way for women to reinvent themselves and assert their individual personalities. For the flapper feminists (https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/the-great-gatsby-still-gets-flappers-wrong/) of the 1910s and 1920s, makeup became a tool of liberation—both economic and sɛҳuąƖ—and Rubinstein taught them how to apply it.
“Women were under such parochial constraints, including sartorial and domestic expectations,” explains Mason Klein, curator of the Jєωιѕн Museum (http://theJєωιѕнmuseum.org/) in New York City, which presented the first-ever retrospective of the cosmetics magnate’s life and collections called, “Helena Rubinstein: Beauty Is Power (http://theJєωιѕнmuseum.org/exhibitions/helena-rubinstein-beauty-is-power),” this past winter. Currently, the Jєωιѕн Museum-organized show is on display at Boca Raton Museum of Art (http://www.bocamuseum.org/index.php?src=gendocs&ref=Current%20Exhibitions&category=Exhibitions) in Boca Raton, Florida, until July 12, 2015. “The middle class frowned terribly upon women who wore makeup. It was only actresses, prostitutes, and the very wealthy who could make themselves up. Rubinstein wanted to make beauty accessible to everyone.
[continue reading here; long article: https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/how-a-makeup-mogul-liberated-women-by-putting-them-in-a-pretty-new-cage/ ][/font][/size]
Excerpt from of the perversion of the Catholic notion of beauty:Note: In the link above, you will have to click on the hyperlink for p. 11, then scroll up to p. 10 to find the excerpt above.
"In Europe, as in other patriarchal civilizations, beauty ideals are defined primarily for men's pleasure and are camouflaged as 'natural.' In medieval Europe, scholastic literature made no distinction between physical beauty and moral goodness. The Church Fathers treated cosmetics as the devil's invention because they embellished appearance. As Ben Love remarks, 'For women of medieval and early modern Europe, beauty was, therefore, not so much a physical trait as a behavioral one, tied to the twin notions of morality and moderation.' Even in the 1930's, remnants of this conception of feminine beauty remained in Church-inspired manuals for married women. By then, however, manuals written by Catholic laywomen put as much emphasis on cosmetically enhanced external appearance as they did on the 'soul.' In the 7th edition of the authoritative French dictionary, published in 1879, the entry for beauty mentioned bonté or the moral quality of kindness but concentrated in visible manifestations that 'please the eyes.' By the 8th edition, published in 1933, moral qualities had disappeared from the definition of beauty."
https://books.google.com/books?id=xNMerfh17kAC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=catholic+church+condemns+cosmetics&source=bl&ots=N-JoHR6_9q&sig=ACfU3U1bP3gr_rVuu19VLNlpIXSMk8WdGw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5h_mMxofgAhVp0YMKHdjFAvwQ6AEwCnoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=catholic%20church%20condemns%20cosmetics&f=false
This is true. But how do you spend a relatively brief period of time with a woman in order to see the person underneath.
You either work with them, or you date them. These are the normal ways to spend enough time with a woman.
Singing in the choir with them does not, generally speaking, allow you to see the person underneath. Neither does meeting them in the tea room after Church once every 2 months.
I am the same way when walking around the lake with my wife:
I would never wear a speedo at home, but I want her to be proud walking next to me, so I like to put on a speedo when we go out. I think it is charity that she should get to show me off to all the other honeys. It shows I am really pleasing her.
Its just part of looking my best.
I do it for her.
:facepalm: :o ;)
Uh-oh, you done said the Jєωs conned women into makeup.I’m fine with it. My cage is colorful, and smells like chocolate, and one is sugar cookie scented, and another is gingerbread scented. (Check out toofaced) I’ll stay in my cage.
:popcorn:
Excerpt from of the perversion of the Catholic notion of beauty:Why are you quoting a non-Catholic, feminist book?
"In Europe, as in other patriarchal civilizations, beauty ideals are defined primarily for men's pleasure and are camouflaged as 'natural.' In medieval Europe, scholastic literature made no distinction between physical beauty and moral goodness. The Church Fathers treated cosmetics as the devil's invention because they embellished appearance. As Ben Love remarks, 'For women of medieval and early modern Europe, beauty was, therefore, not so much a physical trait as a behavioral one, tied to the twin notions of morality and moderation.' Even in the 1930's, remnants of this conception of feminine beauty remained in Church-inspired manuals for married women. By then, however, manuals written by Catholic laywomen put as much emphasis on cosmetically enhanced external appearance as they did on the 'soul.' In the 7th edition of the authoritative French dictionary, published in 1879, the entry for beauty mentioned bonté or the moral quality of kindness but concentrated in visible manifestations that 'please the eyes.' By the 8th edition, published in 1933, moral qualities had disappeared from the definition of beauty."
https://books.google.com/books?id=xNMerfh17kAC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=catholic+church+condemns+cosmetics&source=bl&ots=N-JoHR6_9q&sig=ACfU3U1bP3gr_rVuu19VLNlpIXSMk8WdGw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5h_mMxofgAhVp0YMKHdjFAvwQ6AEwCnoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=catholic%20church%20condemns%20cosmetics&f=false
CroixQuid, please go away. You know, you're very easy to spot. Also, please stop posting immodest pictures. I think that picture-posting should be disabled in the Anonymous forum. Before we know it, we'll be seeing hard-core porn here ... just to prove your point about the horrors of makeup.Lol...I am neither Croix nor Quid.
There's absolutely no comparison here at all. It's more akin to a man wearing a bit of cologne or, the horror, some deodorant ... to spare other people from smelling their BO. So, do you not wear deodorant, since it hides the NATURAL odors of the body? Clearly you would be wearing deodorant simply to attract women, and seduce them, right? That's how absurd your line of thinking is. PS -- I wear deodorant, and there's little difference between that and how women wear makeup (when it's lightly applied and natural-looking).
Why are you quoting a non-Catholic, feminist book?Because it shows you have been influenced by a non-Catholic feminist?
Because it shows you have been influenced by a non-Catholic feminist?Completely irrational answer.
I rate about a 3 on the physical attractiveness scale. So I save my money for things other than make-up. If you can't stand my looks, well, look the other way.You do good in saving up your money; but the second part of your post demonstrates a selfish attitude. That is precisely what the majority of ugly feminist women today think, and that is why we live in an American society where most women look repulsive.
Completely irrational answer.Direct hit.
You do good in saving up your money; but the second part of your post demonstrates a selfish attitude. That is precisely what the majority of ugly feminist women today think, and that is why we live in an American society where most women look repulsive.No, not selfish, just honest, maybe a bit cynical. I don't judge myself upon other's opinions of my physical appearance. I'm neat, cleanly, but make-up just isn't on my radar.
Thought this talk was very interesting. Be patient and listen to the whole thing. She describes how she reverse engineered a dating website and found herself a suitable husband.Umm....nice cleavage?
Lots of interesting thought provoking ideas.
https://youtu.be/d6wG_sAdP0U
Marketing is fun.
I rate about a 3 on the physical attractiveness scale. So I save my money for things other than make-up. If you can't stand my looks, well, look the other way.An eminently Catholic response!
According to that sophistic principle (ie., The Church is not against anything it hasn’t condemned recently), the Church would not be against donation, Pelagianism, Albigensianism, usury, Nestorianism, etc., and would by the same false principle be forced into perpetually repeating all its condemnations lest one presume that which was condemned is now permitted.My point is that if Albigensianism came back into practice, you’d have all kinds of sermons against it, because that’s the evil of the day. Makeup has been around for centuries...when was the last time it was peached against? Maybe it’s not as big of a deal as some of you are making it.
Thought this talk was very interesting. Be patient and listen to the whole thing. She describes how she reverse engineered a dating website and found herself a suitable husband.I don't think she discovered anything monumental here. It really just shows how dumb she was being to begin with.
Lots of interesting thought provoking ideas.
https://youtu.be/d6wG_sAdP0U
Marketing is fun.
You clearly didn't watch the whole thing or failed to understand it.I watched the whole thing. She uncovered the obvious. Popular profiles used good pictures that weren't taken from 10 feet away. She extracted some ideas about the perfect profile text, but the picture itself for a female is way more critical than the text and she didn't prove which was more important because she adjusted both at the same time. Secondly, she "proved" that you should get to know a bit about someone before you meet them and that you shouldn't bother with people who don't align with what you're looking for. Is that really rocket science?
What she did was rather clever.
What she did was rather clever.Actually, her data collection via the fake profiles didn't even make much sense. She wanted to know what the sort of person she wanted to marry would be interested in so that she could market herself that direction. To accomplish that goal, she created 10 fake men who were similar to someone she'd be interested in marrying. Then, she analyzed the people who sent messages to those 10 ads. Now, how exactly did messages initiated by the women tell her anything at all about what the man would be looking for? It didn't really. She was successfully collecting data, but it wasn't specific to what her dream man would be looking for, only to the types of women who would also be interested in her dream man. She did correctly refer to them as "the competition" but her data would in no way tell her how she should go about beating that competition.
I personally think that make up is just over-rated. No amount of make up will help a really ugly woman. For example, women under 5 in the beauty scale, will not benefit much from make up. They are a lost cause on the physical regard. Likewise, truly beautiful women, say above 8 in the beauty scale, would also benefit very little because...well they are naturally beautiful and need nothing else. These women usually look very natural even if they put on little make up here and there, no one can tell and no one cares. For the average rest, let's say number 6 and 7s, make up can help, but not by much, probably will only add 1 point or so in the beauty scale. What I see a lot of, are completely self - deluded women who think that make up would perform true miracles on them, by transforming them into beautiful, when it is just not the case. They just look like extravagant clowns or low self--esteem sluts. I think most of the low-value prostitutes fell into this last category.
I seem to recall Archbishop Sheen saying on one of his shows something like this::D
A woman came up to me the other day and asked me whether or not it was alright for her to wear makeup, to which I replied, "please do".
;D
This is completely false; women can be radically transformed by makeup.Mmmm...I don't think so, certainly not as much as they imagine. Although this is what most women want to hear or believe, and the make-up industry convince them of. But they can't mantain the mask for long, and there is so much they can't hide. For example, most women under 5 in the beauty scale are OVERWEIGHT. Now you can't hide that!
Mmmm...I don't think so, certainly not as much as they imagine.
Have you seen some of those celebrity ladies shown with and without makeup?And then the regular, plain girls who see this imagine they can be made into celebrities with the use of cosmetics. The make-up industry takes advantage of women's delusions. You see a lot of zeros thinking they can be transformed into 10's just by using certain products...
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS738US738&q=celebrities+with+and+without+makeup&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiru72Kn4ngAhXKpYMKHacCD5oQsAR6BAgEEAE&biw=1555&bih=969
And, yes, these cross the threshold of being unnatural.
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.Sound like some sour grapes got your panties in a bunch?
"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?"
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).
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.
You do realize, don't you?, that marriage involves BOTH the supernatural and the natural.Funny, I hear none of the former coming from the cosmetologists on this thread!
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.You mean they pay the supernatural aspect lip service.
This is more or less what I am hearing from the makeup advocates who call themselves "traditional Catholics:"Hmm...pic/quote didn't show....will try one more time:
(http://мNycYGRkEnbyAN3LtlLGJ3mCq80zS6UYuFGhIwNRVcn4PPTxx4ZqssuCXC3zSsIxD200ysHYue0hjiClNGBgoxzqPhS/xv0swhbP1NRM9yY2cNnEMbOIz2mk7PrOkDp3T5jLPzFzdDaXVnbSfGunZc5+IAMKT9KQoo95PhQfOcuFTzhOwWNiFnQiRzGAJojGCCEbOCc4xVle2DNZvACNRgaIE7DUY9IPuzS5zfz4vD7tIpVHZNbvKMAmR5Q4RIkHQls/x2AqHxjmziNva2skkFslxdXAiETs4WJGVmUSPn43d32wM4xQPdlEVjRT1VVU48wAKg80WDz2k8MeNckbouo4GojAyQDgfVSrdcz8St7ftrmG0789tFH2Lu6lZXKuSdundxjzNWnNnM8lrdWcCIjC4W7Zi2cr6vCJFxg+JODQWfLtnLGsrTBFeWZ5dKMXCghVA1FVycLnp41BtOByrdCY6dPbXEnU50yxxqu2OuUOfqpe5Z56vXezN3bQrDfZEMkLsWVwpYB1bfBA6jpTNzVx57aSyRFVhc3SQNqzsrKxJXB693xoNfOXCZ5wpgEbMEuIiJHKDE8WgMCFbOCBtjoT5b3D2ebcwnfMZjPt7umlPhHOd1c3DrBZK9vHctbSP26CZNJwZWjYDCezOo+FPFAn8r8u3EM8csxjIW07N9JJPrDy9pIRkDu4C4PXrtRz9y1PeA9iUB9WmiGskfCPNbyL0B7umFwT7RU7lHm+C/a5WI/wBHmMR3zqX5Mgx8liHx9GsudeOvZxRSoqsrXEMUmrO0UjaWYYPUEjrtQX619pV5r5uEEMhtykk0dxDbFGzgSSlDg4wT3Hzt4gjwIqRzdzfBYNbCY/0iYRDcDSvypD/dUlM/SoGKqTndscOvT5Wtwfsiao/O/HZrKFLlI1khSRRcjfWsLEAyJg7lfEEdD4YNLvMHNLXcfE4rcI1pBYzdpPudU7wuQkRB0kBdyd99vEGg4VHk5Ync+J8P58vq88Rr64wuPPPv9/v6/wAinDkTly3vIrqSdrhEthEVFuquzdoXBOkoxbBUYx7ayj5PsLqZzb3c6W1tGz3ktxGA8ZDYVEUIveOl+oONPngGkjXLJzqr/lX84Kvr/kyymga54ZdyTJC8a3EcqaZFR20iRe6Mjr4eB32xTXcej+zt2uPVp7lpbQI8izIvZsjgNhHVFBbHtO+2PERnN4047JlNmPg0A0j3VB5l5bWbDrs48fP+TU7hE3dFMdzZFNOr5Qz7j4iuTHfuO7PUuq5wkdwoCuquFBCschvrIP7KsrNZiCgwqnwXr9ZOSacbbhqOSNwdJI9pH8KzseFDIyCBpLeHQVrvKxlZxy70qeHcKRASFwzDDb5z5VnBbBXONs1eeroqqZHILDIAGcDzNa7fhWZGBb5IZGHQg9M1S429J+JPdaOJDEY91LHC7BS0jEZYk4Pl4ZFOt7ZfAuzZBVSQPaB40ucGtH7FpvkhsY9nifqOB9vlSyzIxynj+6pn4aYWzDlFHhknIzvml++7XoAn1IfZ4asefhXUxYCSHWOu+3sHlUC+4YgCHGdShj7/AGVfeUiPyZe/bly8GluXzIWI9vl5AU32XCUjQKoAA/nwppseGQMOrhgpZsAYwPLatTWcR1P2jLCgGWI7xY+AA+qqZTKpmWMcl57jCikCQ75866r6UOGJ6r61byGSIOI3BGHRm+LnzB2H1jrnbkmratuPHUY8llrbbD4RPpp94V7KrxtZn4RPpp94V7JrXFhkKKKKsqKWPSBwma5ghSFdTJdW8pGQuEjfUx7xHQeFSuO8eNvc2UAQMLqR4y2caNCa8gY3zjHhRzfzKtjErdm00sriKCFPjSSt0XO+kbbt4e3pQLnMfIKLHIbKIdrPeW9xL3lACxuGYLnGFzqbT5ufDAFHzH6PL/iNxd3Mk6W2oiKCMxpK3YQkPEwkDZhLONR077nORtTRwfnK49ZjtuIWJs3mDdg4lSaN2UamQsmyMB59fszA/wCIV1KHuLThklxZIzDtu1RHkVCQ7xRkFnAwcefTY5ACv4zyZe8Qls5rgG3mhtDmVHQ9nepIGRwFJ1KdJbboG6gitvNnCOI31naCayjknguQ80XaxiKVFRhqU57obI7pGRvtirK/9J9tE0LnHq0to9yJM98srBREE8XJOMZ2IPhvTLyvf3E9us1zALdn7yxaizKh+Lryowx+bjbx3yACjNwS+u7B7VrWGwaEwPaYlEyF4mLaW0jKqNIHj8bO+MV8/IfEr25jub2KGAWsNwkMcuм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)
Sound like some sour grapes got your panties in a bunch?
Wow, what a rejoinder! You don't like being called out for your sanctimony, do you, Troll—or is it Trollette?And there it is at last: The inevitable charge of "Puritanism" (the refuge of every feminist libertine seeking independence from traditional morals and values), with references to Islam thrown in to boot.
The fundamental problem revealed in this thread is not an excess of vanity or vainglory among Trad women or men. Rather, it is a Puritanical hatred of people who are simply more physically attractive than the complainers and who don't conceal their appearance with a burka or a paper bag with a pair of eye holes cut out.
I think is crazy how anyone here thinks it’s ok to refer to women as hotties, honeys, And sexy. You guys are smart enough to figure out a better word to use, and you are Catholic which means your held to a higher standard with your words. Please stop. Don’t make excuses. Just stop. It’s degrading.Even if it is the woman, whose pursuit of sɛҳuąƖ attraction and superficial beauty, is the one degrading herself from the status of "lady" to "hotty/honey?"
Even if it is the woman, whose pursuit of sɛҳuąƖ attraction and superficial beauty, is the one degrading herself from the status of "lady" to "hotty/honey?"Yes, because you have a choice not to say it. Women shouldn’t refer to men that way, and men shouldn’t refer to women that way. It’s disgusting, and degrading.
Even if it is the woman, whose pursuit of sɛҳuąƖ attraction and superficial beauty, is the one degrading herself from the status of "lady" to "hotty/honey?"
… the refuge of every feminist libertine seeking independence from traditional morals and values … with references to Islam thrown in to boot.
Coming from a man who obviously doesn't know women. Women simply want to be pretty and beautiful ... it's a natural instinct. You transmute that into wanting to be "hot" and "sexy". And so what if she wants to be "hot" to her husband or catch the eye of a potential future spouse ... provided that she doesn't cross the line of becoming an incitement to impurity? And, yes, the charge of Puritanism fits ... or, more appropriately, Manichaean gnosticism. Matthew has rightly banned a few posters here for such un-Catholic attitudes. 99% of the lunks who talk like this will in fact completely overlook even a saintly woman if they don't find her attractive. So in most cases the charge of hypocrisy also sticks.If only you could have been there to straighten the saints out!
Toxic cliché alert!This from the man who believes in evolution and women in pants?
Sadly, whimsicality is probably out of place here, as Ladislaus and a few—too few!—unnamed others have implicitly suggested. All by itself, the quoted material exhibits three or four of the Seven Deadly Sins, and its writer is patently in need of orthodox counsel and catechesis to mend his gravely defective and malformed conscience. A solid thrashing might be appropriate, too.
I suspect I am not alone in regretting that I yielded to the temptation today to look at this abominable thread.
It is a scandal to see how many here abhor the teaching of the saints.
Of all the dangers and mountainous problems of feminism today, make-up is truly a molehill. Much bigger fish to fry.Terrible principle to suggest smaller sins can skate by if there is a bigger sin out there.
Terrible principle to suggest smaller sins can skate by if there is a bigger sin out there.
This is very simple !
First of all if a woman is wearing makeup of which her father or husband disapproves then that is wrong.
Equally if she is doing so out of a motivation of vanity or immodesty then that is wrong.
But if she wears modest and discrete makeup with the approval of her father / husband - was then why not ?!
Right, but in each case, it's wrong due some other reason and not in and of itself, the first being disobedience, the second vanity or immodesty.That is my point. Makeup is ont a sin but immodesty, vanity and disobedience are.
That is my point. Makeup is ont a sin but immodesty, vanity and disobedience are.Could you please provide any example of the use of cosmetics which is not an act of vanity (and by your own definition, sinful)?
The same argument against make-up could be made against a fancy dress, or a nice suit, or a tuxedo, or a sports car, or going to the gym...all of these activities are meant to help the individual “be better” or “look good” or “feel good about himself”...therefore they are wrong, because they are unnecessary, prideful and the intention is vanity.Dead wrong:
I believe the above ideals are puritanical, extreme and stoic, but if others don’t, then be consistent and start anathematizing all other “vain” activities.
Could you please provide any example of the use of cosmetics which is not an act of vanity (and by your own definition, sinful)?I second that question.
But cosmetics, by the repeated admissions of its users, reflect either carnal or vain motives (ie., makes me feel better because others will think better of me).
The chasm separating dignity from vanity is infinite.One person's dignity is another person's vanity. It's all relative.
In the same way, for women who are looking for marriage or who are married, I think it's part of their state in life to wear make-up (to a degree) in order to be presentable in society. Secondly, make-up is a COMMON PRACTICE in our society, so that those who wear NONE would appear unusual and extreme, and Catholic morals does not demand we "take a stand" on areas where there are no intrinsic evils involved. In other words, this is a gray area which each person has to decide for themselves their level of vanity and the occasion of sin which cosmetics causes them.I knew we were going to get to the skirt / pants argument here soon enough. Except, that pants are WAY MORE UNIVERSAL than makeup. So, if you're justifying makeup because someone who wears none would be "unusual or extreme" then you certainly can't expect women to wear skirts.
Cosmetics are objects, which do not reflect a motive. The motive comes from the individual, which could be good, bad or neutral.Nice try, but no cigar:
If the wearing of cosmetics ALWAYS has a motive of vanity, then the ownership of a gun ALWAYS has a motive of violence. Of course, this makes no sense. The true answer is that cosmetics, like fine clothing, a nice house, or a sports car, is not wrong in and of itself. Such things can be a sin for some people, who are overly attached to these luxuries, yet not a sin for others.
St Thomas More was the 2nd highest nobleman in England, lived in a mansion, and had all kinds of servants. Was this sinful? No, because it was part of state in life and he wasn't attached to riches (as he proved at the end of his life, when he lost all of his wealth after disagreeing with Henry VIII).
In the same way, for women who are looking for marriage or who are married, I think it's part of their state in life to wear make-up (to a degree) in order to be presentable in society. Secondly, make-up is a COMMON PRACTICE in our society, so that those who wear NONE would appear unusual and extreme, and Catholic morals does not demand we "take a stand" on areas where there are no intrinsic evils involved. In other words, this is a gray area which each person has to decide for themselves their level of vanity and the occasion of sin which cosmetics causes them.
As a man, I see no major "occasion to sin" from make-up. The occasion to sin is typically related to fashion, not a pretty face.
One person's dignity is another person's vanity. It's all relative.
Haven't read through entire thread so I apologize if this was mentioned.It would definitely be vanity, for sure.
Is it sinful for men to dye their hair or wear a toupee?
I didn't really want to comment on this thread but I think I need to.I think I might have had to wait all the way until kindergarten or 1st grade before I understood "two wrongs don't make a right."
I have seen a lot of young ladies at my old trad community that were quite feminine, HOLY and lovely in their demeanor and actions, but I wish I had a dollar for every time they were passed over by young trad men in favor of the new attractive girl on the block .These young ladies would make wonderful wives and mothers, but they are usually never approached.They may be considered "plain", but never ugly! It's apparent that men are not necessarily looking for holiness as their primary trait in a spouse, but they are certainly looking for attractiveness, as implied even in this thread. I'm not a feminist but i find referring to trad women as numbers ("She's a 10- she's a five")a bit revolting and I'm surprised I'm even reading this here. Why don't you go get a veterinarian and have their teeth checked while you're at it? Not a lot of respect and dignity
The girls that are always ignored "get it". They know the score. Beauty is the #1 way to catch a prospective husband. Can you imagine the rejection/dejection some of these ladies feel? They are trying to do the right thing for God, but it's not enough for the guys. I'm sure many of them would like to get out of bed in the morning, shake their hair and naturally look like ( a young) Christie Brinkley, that's what (ALL) men want, but it's not happening for them. Funny, it's the men who place such a high price on beauty , and I'm not even blaming them for it- it's a natural response. But then when young ladies try to compete for attention by applying a little make-up ( applied well it DOES improve your looks) it's a sin. I think this thread just proves the point on why some Trad women feel compelled to wear make-up especially if they are not 8 and 1/2's!!
I didn't really want to comment on this thread but I think I need to.Where your heart breaks to see them passed over, my heart breaks to see holy women encouraged and tempted to degrade themselves.
I have seen a lot of young ladies at my old trad community that were quite feminine, HOLY and lovely in their demeanor and actions, but I wish I had a dollar for every time they were passed over by young trad men in favor of the new attractive girl on the block .These young ladies would make wonderful wives and mothers, but they are usually never approached.They may be considered "plain", but never ugly! It's apparent that men are not necessarily looking for holiness as their primary trait in a spouse, but they are certainly looking for attractiveness, as implied even in this thread. I'm not a feminist but i find referring to trad women as numbers ("She's a 10- she's a five")a bit revolting and I'm surprised I'm even reading this here. Why don't you go get a veterinarian and have their teeth checked while you're at it? Not a lot of respect and dignity
The girls that are always ignored "get it". They know the score. Beauty is the #1 way to catch a prospective husband. Can you imagine the rejection/dejection some of these ladies feel? They are trying to do the right thing for God, but it's not enough for the guys. I'm sure many of them would like to get out of bed in the morning, shake their hair and naturally look like ( a young) Christie Brinkley, that's what (ALL) men want, but it's not happening for them. Funny, it's the men who place such a high price on beauty , and I'm not even blaming them for it- it's a natural response. But then when young ladies try to compete for attention by applying a little make-up ( applied well it DOES improve your looks) it's a sin. I think this thread just proves the point on why some Trad women feel compelled to wear make-up especially if they are not 8 and 1/2's!!
Young men and women today need to be patient: Finding the right spouse amidst immodest fashions and the crisis in the Church has considerably contracted the pool of worthy spouses. It might mean not marrying until your 30's until the right guy/gal comes along.This makes me wonder if it explains why there is so much modernism and worldliness on many younger SSPX marriages?
A man who marries 80% for looks will be willing to accept various compromises in his marriage in order to hold it together (i.e., there will be differences in things which matter most).
A woman who degrades herself to catch a man will suffer the same fate.
"Nothing begun so poorly can end well" -St. Augustine
The article linked below from the conciliar National Catholic Register, despite being tinged by a bit of personalism, still hits close to the mark, then sinks the dagger at the end, and definitively settles the issue:In other words, the use of makeup is always at least venial.
A quote from Alphonsus Liguori's Theologia Moralis:
"[We] excuse from mortal sin those who because of a local custom expose their breasts, or use makeup, pigments or fake hair, so long as they are doing it only to appear more beautiful, not out of a lascivious motive, or with some other mortally sinful intent, or if there is a particular law prohibiting something in particular under pain of mortal sin. (Moral Theology, Book 2, Treatise 3, On Charity, Chapter 2.54)"
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/sspencer/cosmetics-and-the-objectification-of-women
First, regarding the NCR citation from St. Alphonsus:I posted, and now corrected the above (see lineout).
The quotation can be found in Grant's English-language translation in Vol. I, p. 583. However, it is not St. Alphonsus's own opinion, but his commentary on the opinion of Cajetan and Navarre. He says their opinion is that "they seem to teach that they [those women described in the NCR quote] are only held under venial sin (but less probably), when in a particular case a fall is foreseen..." [i.e., by scandal].
So, what does St. Alphonsus himself actually hold to be the true position?
He gives the principle on p. 581:
"54. A woman that probably foresees from her dress, even if it is suited to her state, that someone in particular is going to fall mortally, she is held to not wear it for a short time, or to flee the sight of such a man."
OK, so that is about immodest dress. We are talking about makeup, so is the quote/principle still pertinent?
It would seem yes, because in the very next paragraph he cites the Salamancans, Cajetan, Trull, Paulus, and Navarre all appealing to the quote from St. Thomas Aquinas (from the first page of this thread), which discussed dress to please the husband, but also makeup to please him.
Alphonsus then opposesnot onlyall their appeals to St. Thomas,but opposes St. Thomas himself,stating:
"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)
In other words, St. Alphonsus is opposing the Salamancans, Cajetan, et al, by pointing out to them that although St. Thomas gives women some leeway in dress for their husbands, St. Thomas (and St. Alphonsus) do NOT do so in the case of makeup.
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...Nevertheless, they add that the custom of uncovering their breast, or only lightly covering them iss a grave matter and a mortal sin where it is not introduced. (p. 583)
Consequently (and keeping in mind that the popes have declared that anyone may be guided by the principles of St. Alphonsus's Theologia Moralis without fear), it seems that unless I have somehow misread Alphonsus, it seems that there is unanimity among the moralists that wearing makeup is at least venially sinful.
This from the man who believes in evolution and women in pants?
Pot, meet kettle!
You are a typical mudslinging coward who hides behind the veil of anonymity. You lack the learning and the courage to step out from behind the veil and identify yourself.Hi Claudel-
Cry "Lord, Lord" all you want. Only your fellow cowards are deceived by your moral preening.
Hilarious to watch how people are trying to explain away very clear teachings. And then resort to nastiness when they're pinned into a corner about it.This!
But cosmetics, by the repeated admissions of its users, reflect either carnal or vain motives (ie., makes me feel better because others will think better of me).
Hi Claudel-
May I presume Claudel is your real name? Care to provide your real full name?
If not, please silence yourself according to your own condemnation.
I could see some fringe examples involving actual disfigurement, but a normal woman wearing makeup involves some degree of vanity.
Typical conduct of a smug, infantile fraud—you won't reveal your CathInfo handle, so you resort to a combination of virtue-signaling and sticking out your ugly tongue, just like a spoiled three-year-old—or else a twenty-year-old closet queen. Which are you then? Hmm? You aren't an adult and definitely not a real man.
I note, too, that your amen corner chimed right in. Or was that simply you again, pretending to be multiple anonymous cowards?
Or is it just you, Neil, being Neil yet again?
Typical conduct of a smug, infantile fraud—you won't reveal your CathInfo handle, ...
Nice try, but no cigar:
The following definitions of "dignity" and "vanity" are those which come up simply by Googling the terms, ...
I wrote the above, and I stand by it.No you don't: If you did, you would identify yourself before condemning the anonymity of others.
I didn't really want to comment on this thread but I think I need to.
I have seen a lot of young ladies at my old trad community that were quite feminine, HOLY and lovely in their demeanor and actions, but I wish I had a dollar for every time they were passed over by young trad men in favor of the new attractive girl on the block .These young ladies would make wonderful wives and mothers, but they are usually never approached.They may be considered "plain", but never ugly! It's apparent that men are not necessarily looking for holiness as their primary trait in a spouse, but they are certainly looking for attractiveness, as implied even in this thread. I'm not a feminist but i find referring to trad women as numbers ("She's a 10- she's a five")a bit revolting and I'm surprised I'm even reading this here. Why don't you go get a veterinarian and have their teeth checked while you're at it? Not a lot of respect and dignity
The girls that are always ignored "get it". They know the score. Beauty is the #1 way to catch a prospective husband. Can you imagine the rejection/dejection some of these ladies feel? They are trying to do the right thing for God, but it's not enough for the guys. I'm sure many of them would like to get out of bed in the morning, shake their hair and naturally look like ( a young) Christie Brinkley, that's what (ALL) men want, but it's not happening for them. Funny, it's the men who place such a high price on beauty , and I'm not even blaming them for it- it's a natural response. But then when young ladies try to compete for attention by applying a little make-up ( applied well it DOES improve your looks) it's a sin. I think this thread just proves the point on why some Trad women feel compelled to wear make-up especially if they are not 8 and 1/2's!!
Catholic beauty: Well-dressed; pretty; dignified comportment; well-groomed and clean; modest.
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/b3/0d/fe/b30dfe9b6b96576c798b1f70407fd508.jpg)
But, gasp, she's wearing earrings. That's an unnatural sɛҳuąƖ lure. And she put up her hair. Oh, vanity of vanities!No makeup.
Self-righteous, hypocritical, Pharisaical idiots.
In other words, the use of makeup is always at least venial.
Case closed/lock thread.
I knew we were going to get to the skirt / pants argument here soon enough. Except, that pants are WAY MORE UNIVERSAL than makeup. So, if you're justifying makeup because someone who wears none would be "unusual or extreme" then you certainly can't expect women to wear skirts.You can't compare makeup to women wearing pants, because the former is natural to a woman's nature, while the latter is contrary. Also, makeup has been around for CENTURIES, while women wearing pants has existed for less than 70 years. The "social argument" I made is the not the primary one but a secondary one. The primary argument for makeup is that God created women to be beautiful and attractive, and it is in their nature to want to be, so wearing a modest amount is akin to wearing modest clothes that fit, instead of wearing a potato sack. All things in moderation....
But, gasp, she's wearing earrings. That's an unnatural sɛҳuąƖ lure. And she put up her hair. Oh, vanity of vanities!I've also heard some protties quoting against the use of Jєωelry. They hate it when girls use earrings or necklaces. I think they're just resentful of women in general. Usually, they don't have one, or the one they got is very ugly, so they become hateful of the attractive woman they can't have; but secretly want.
Self-righteous, hypocritical, Pharisaical idiots.
Consequently (and keeping in mind that the popes have declared that anyone may be guided by the principles of St. Alphonsus's Theologia Moralis without fear), it seems that unless I have somehow misread Alphonsus, it seems that there is unanimity among the moralists that wearing makeup is at least venially sinful.
You can't compare makeup to women wearing pants, because the former is natural to a woman's nature, while the latter is contrary. Also, makeup has been around for CENTURIES, while women wearing pants has existed for less than 70 years. The "social argument" I made is the not the primary one but a secondary one. The primary argument for makeup is that God created women to be beautiful and attractive, and it is in their nature to want to be, so wearing a modest amount is akin to wearing modest clothes that fit, instead of wearing a potato sack. All things in moderation....
Obfuscation by the libertines, but no will to take on St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, who BOTH CONCUR:
"But with regard to make-up it is always a sin"
Yep, you've misread a lot of things. You claim unanimity among the moralists even though a couple paragraphs earlier you mentioned that St. Alphonsus was opposing the opinions of other moralists on this issue.Nice try:
As I mentioned earlier, as well, saying something is not mortal is not the logical equivalent of saying that it's necessarily venial.
You gratuitously throw in "at least" venially when NONE of the authorities on either side of the issues asserted that it was a mortal sin.
Finally, you miss the entire context of WHY and IN WHAT CONTEXT St. Alphonsus considers it wrong. It's always in the context of being an incitement to impurity and "on account of men". And you miss the historical context. Makeup was not as widely used back in the day of St. Alphonsus, and when it was used, it was not at all subtle. So you need to understand WHAT he's actually talking about. He excuses from mortal sin even women who bear their breasts to appear more beautiful ... if it's their cultural custom.
He also speaks of the intent to "deceive" men in particular. Few men today, given the prevalence of makeup, are "deceived" by it.
There's no sin whatsoever committed by a woman who applies a modest amount of natural-looking makeup as if it were any other aspect of grooming.
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)
St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus:
"But with regard to makeup, it is always a sin."
END-OF-THREAD
:laugh1: That wasn't even the end of the sentence, idiot. I love it how you think that increasing your font size suddenly makes your argument more convincing.Please refute the following:
So, let me help you. I don't want you to hurt yourself. He's saying here that makeup is always a sin (IN HIS SOCIETY) because men do not consent to women wearing makeup as they do to their being "elegantly" dressed ... because men do not wish to be deceived. Men in modern society have not only permitted women to wear a certain amount of makeup but many even expect and demand it of their wives, and, as another poster put it, would pay no attention to women who do not wear makeup. Notice the allowances all these moralists make for "custom" ... to the point that if custom dictates that women prop up their breasts, partly exposed, they would not sin (at least not mortally) if they're simply following the custom.Wrong again: I have St. Alphonsus, and you obviously do not.
People in traditional “Catholic” circles who pontificate on whether or not a woman can or should wear make up are clearly NOT CATHOLIC. The same applies to what women can or cannot wear.Matthew: This should be an easy "INSTABAN!"
If you think women should look old ugly and like Mormons or Amish, then you are not Catholic. Women are not cows from the breeding shed nor are they property. Please people...this is not what the catholic faith is about nor has it ever been.
CULT ALERT.
People in traditional “Catholic” circles who pontificate on whether or not a woman can or should wear make up are clearly NOT CATHOLIC. The same applies to what women can or cannot wear.A cow from the breeding shed?!?!
If you think women should look old ugly and like Mormons or Amish, then you are not Catholic. Women are not cows from the breeding shed nor are they property. Please people...this is not what the catholic faith is about nor has it ever been.
CULT ALERT.
You can't compare makeup to women wearing pants, because the former is natural to a woman's nature, while the latter is contrary. Also, makeup has been around for CENTURIES, while women wearing pants has existed for less than 70 years. The "social argument" I made is the not the primary one but a secondary one. The primary argument for makeup is that God created women to be beautiful and attractive, and it is in their nature to want to be, so wearing a modest amount is akin to wearing modest clothes that fit, instead of wearing a potato sack. All things in moderation....Insofar as women are naturally inclined to vanity, then yes, they are naturally inclined to makeup. But, that doesn't make it virtuous. On the other hand, wearing sackcloth is usually associated with humility and virtue.
Young men and women today need to be patient: Finding the right spouse amidst immodest fashions and the crisis in the Church has considerably contracted the pool of worthy spouses. It might mean not marrying until your 30's until the right guy/gal comes along.Ladies should NOT wait until their 30's to get married! Chances are they will just end up being childless spinsters. Just ask the average feminist, liberal gal out there. Women have no much time.
St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus:Someone please refute this, or acknowledge it. Everything else is obfuscation!
"But with regard to makeup, it is always a sin."
Ladies should NOT wait until their 30's to get married! Chances are they will just end up being childless spinsters. Just ask the average feminist, liberal gal out there. Women have no much time.Irrelevant to the issue of makeup, which St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus (and every other saint quoted by either) declares to be at least venally sinful.
That's because he doesn't have one ... since he's been banned a few times already.I have seen similar comments. Is it really possible for a non-member to post anonymously?.
Insofar as women are naturally inclined to vanity, then yes, they are naturally inclined to makeup. But, that doesn't make it virtuous.Ok, at least you admit that makeup is not in the same universe as pants wearing; thank you. ...I didn't say wearing makeup was virtuous, I said it is a TOOL of beauty, just like clothing or shoes or purses can be. Makeup is an OBJECT; it's not inherently sinful, therefore it could/could not be used as vanity. It depends on the person and their intention/attachment to it.
But, gasp, she's wearing earrings. That's an unnatural sɛҳuąƖ lure. And she put up her hair. Oh, vanity of vanities!And she was only 14 years old in this photograph! Shocking indeed! How ever did she become a saint?
Self-righteous, hypocritical, Pharisaical idiots.
I have seen similar comments. Is it really possible for a non-member to post anonymously?.No. You have to be a member in good standing to post in any sub-forum, including this one.
Ok, at least you admit that makeup is not in the same universe as pants wearing; thank you. ...I didn't say wearing makeup was virtuous, I said it is a TOOL of beauty, just like clothing or shoes or purses can be. Makeup is an OBJECT; it's not inherently sinful, therefore it could/could not be used as vanity. It depends on the person and their intention/attachment to it.As far as I'm aware, there are only two categories of actions -- positive (virtue) and negative (sin). Many things can fall into one category or the other depending on the intention of the individual. But, it should be clearly pointed out what those pure intentions are, especially concerning an action that inclines 98% of a certain group of people toward sin.
In former days, it would easier to make the argument that makeup was directly tied to vanity because it was so costly and it was not easy to obtain. So if a woman spent all kinds of time/money to get it, such a purchase is both vain and luxurious and was TYPICALLY considered a wealth or "status" item. Nowadays, however, cosmetics are everywhere, they are cheap, and they are considered a normal part of women's attire. It could still be considered vain to use cosmetics today, but NOT in the same sense as 150 years ago.
26 people on this thread, at 11:45PM EST, about makeup?Oh believe me, they will continue to try!
Man, trads are in sorry shape if there is division among them on this score!
What could be clearer than St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus on the matter?
26 people on this thread, at 11:45PM EST, about makeup?You are way too invested on this topic and are starting to act unbalanced. It diminishes the credibility of your argument, even if the original argument has some merit to it.
Man, trads are in sorry shape if there is division among them on this score!
What could be clearer than St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus on the matter?
You are way too invested on this topic and are starting to act unbalanced. It diminishes the credibility of your argument, even if the original argument has some merit to it.LOL!
Catholics need way more than a couple of isolated "quotes" from saints to form their consciences on any given topic. Leave that method to the Protestants.
How many frequent-makeup-wearing women do you know who don't also do most of these things:
- own more than 6 pair of earrings, 6 necklaces, 6 bracelets, etc (the six allows for gifts or other sentimental items)
- own more than 5 pair of shoes
- go clothing shopping despite already having plenty of usable clothes
- fashion their hair in some manner not in line with it's natural appearance (color, curl, straighten, etc)
- have their fingernails regularly painted or wear fake nails
These usually come as a package deal because they're all symptoms of the same disease -- vanity.
Vanity need not involve an element of lust. Any over-attention paid to one's appearance is vanity.
Note: I'm not attempting to say this is a huge deal as there are many more serious sins which most of us should worry about more than this, but you shouldn't pretend that being female justifies being vain. It is not at all difficult to abstain from these outward displays if you wish to do so. Furthermore, mere absence of makeup does not make anyone "unusual" or "extreme".
Vanity need not involve an element of lust. Any over-attention paid to one's appearance is vanity.
In that case, it would be an imperfection; and not a sin.The insurmountable obstacle:
Furthermore, mere absence of makeup does not make anyone "unusual" or "extreme".
In that case, it would be an imperfection; and not a sin.I don't think vanity is anything less than venial sin, but I've read different explanations of what constitutes an imperfection, so I'd have to see a source describing make-up or something similar as such to know if that's even a possibility.
I agree. The usual where I live, are women with totally washed faces. Unfortunately, they are also fat, dressed in rags, undone hair and nails, and very ugly in general. The sight is truly depressing. Rarely one sees a woman putting any effort at all towards their appearance anymore. I'd say the "extreme" nowadays are the pretty girls.You don't sound like you live in a very affluent neighborhood. :farmer:
I don't think women should necessarily add make - up to look presentable, this is actually not THAT important. But come on! at least, lose some weight and comb your hair and clean your nails!
Women who know how to apply makeup minimally do not look like they are wearing makeup.I know that.
provided that they only intend greater adornment of beauty, not wantonness for others
You don't sound like you live in a very affluent neighborhood. :farmer: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.
.
Clean face, clean hands, clean hair, clean clothes ... this is basic hygiene and has nothing to do with vanity.
Of COURSE I'm not trying to say St Thomas promotes lesbianism! The point ( obviously missed by you) is that the superficial aspect of make-up is not necessarily the "be all end all " of the argument. Many people wear it (or not) for many different reasons and not wearing it in and of itself does not mean superior virtue, as in this case.And the point obviously missed by you is that the unanimity of the teaching of the saints is that the subjective intent and circuмstance only has bearing on whether the sin is venial or mortal.
it is all about intent, moderation and motive.
(You also have no sense of humor- scary)
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.
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.If you can make "makeup is always a sin" mean "makeup is NOT always a sin," I stand ready to behold your wizardry!
Nor will your reposting it in larger fonts mean that you even understand it correctly.
And the point obviously missed by you is that the unanimity of the teaching of the saints is that the subjective intent and circuмstance only has bearing on whether the sin is venial or mortal.
If you can make "makeup is always a sin" mean "makeup is NOT always a sin," I stand ready to behold your wizardry!
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?
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.What part of "ALWAYS sinful" don't you get?
So the key is whether the action is INTRINSICALLY evil (i.e. sinful). Which St. Thomas clearly says is not the case by indicating his reasons for why it's sinful (because men disapprove). So if that reason changes, then it's no longer sinful. And if something is not intrinsically sinful, then there can be open debate about the circuмstances under which it would be sinful and the circuмstances in which it would not be sinful. Some women put on makeup JUST FOR THEMSELVES, even if they don't leave the house and have no husband around. So wearing makeup around the house with no one around, that is sinful too? Based on your distortion of St. Thomas, that would be the case. Some women, similarly, get dressed in decent clothes even if they're alone at home because it makes them feel better, even if no one else sees them. What if you're on TV, and makeup is practically required so that your face does not shine unnaturally as if it were greasy ... without the application of makeup? In your reading of St. Thomas, that would be sinful too. Give it a rest.What part of "ALWAYS sinful" don't you get?
No I will not intervene in this thread. I see no trolls. Just a heated discussion. Fight with your argumentation and ideas, not having recourse to the moderator.
Matthew
Well, you USED to have a policy against people re-pasting the same stuff over and over again, and other obnoxious behavior like using gigantic fonts on such reposts.Mommy, make him stop!
Well, you USED to have a policy against people re-pasting the same stuff over and over again, and other obnoxious behavior like using gigantic fonts on such reposts.You get to use foul language and insults, and I get to use large font to help you see.
St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus:
"But with regard to makeup, it is always a sin."
Finish the sentence, and refute my arguments or go away.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)
Nevertheless a woman (http://newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) may use means to please her husband, lest through despising her he fall into adultery (http://newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm). Hence it is written (1 Corinthians 7:34 (http://newadvent.org/bible/1co007.htm#verse34)) that the woman (http://newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) "that is married (http://newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm) thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband." Wherefore if a married (http://newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm) woman (http://newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) adorn herself in order to please her husband she can do this without sin (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm).
And if indeed they adorn themselves with this intention (http://newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm) of provoking others to lust (http://newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm), they sin (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) mortally; whereas if they do so from frivolity, or from vanity for the sake of ostentation, it is not always mortal, but sometimes venial. ...
Yet in this case some might be excused from sin (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), when they do this not through vanity but on account of some contrary custom: although such a custom is not to be commended.
Reply to Objection 1. As a gloss (http://newadvent.org/cathen/06586a.htm) says on this passage, "The wives of those who were in distress despised their husbands, and decked themselves that they might please other men": and the Apostle (http://newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) forbids this. Cyprian (http://newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm) is speaking in the same sense; yet he does not forbid married (http://newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm) women (http://newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) to adorn themselves in order to please their husbands, lest the latter be afforded an occasion of sin (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) with other women (http://newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm). Hence the Apostle (http://newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) says (1 Timothy 2:9 (http://newadvent.org/bible/1ti002.htm#verse9)): "Women . . . in ornate [Douay (http://newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm): 'decent'] apparel, adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire": whence we are given to understand that women (http://newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) are not forbidden to adorn themselves soberly and moderately but to do so excessively, shamelessly, and immodestly.
Reply to Objection 2. Cyprian (http://newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm) is speaking of women (http://newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) painting themselves: this is a kind of falsification, which cannot be devoid of sin (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm). Wherefore Augustine (http://newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) 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 (http://newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm) 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 (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), but only when it is done for the sake of sensuous pleasure or in contempt of God (http://newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), and it is to like cases that Cyprian (http://newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm) refers.
It must, however, be observed that it is one thing to counterfeit a beauty one has not, and another to hide a disfigurement arising from some cause (http://newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm) such as sickness or the like. For this is lawful, since according to the Apostle (http://newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) (1 Corinthians 12:23 (http://newadvent.org/bible/1co012.htm#verse23)), "such as we think to be the less honorable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honor (http://newadvent.org/cathen/07462a.htm)."
Accordingly, since women (http://newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) may lawfully adorn themselves, whether to maintain the fitness of their estate, or even by adding something thereto, in order to please their husbands, it follows that those who make such means of adornment do not sin (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) in the practice of their art, except perhaps by inventing means that are superfluous and fantastic.
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)
You get to use foul language and insults, and I get to use large font to help you see.
Pretty fair, I think.
Lol, in your first long-winded attempt, you would have us accept your unqualified and biased interpretation of St Thomas over that of a doctor of the Church’s
Lol, in your first long-winded attempt, you would have us accept your unqualified and biased interpretation of St Thomas over that of a doctor of the Church’s, and in your 2nd miserable attempt, you seem to imply that either St Alphonsus falsified tge quote, or didn’t understand what he read?
You need to get over yourself.
Ah, OK, so citing the full text of St. Thomas is my being long-winded.Your citation of Thomas is the same one Alphonsus is commenting on when he observes St Thomas in his commentary on Timothy precluding the use of makeup and declaring it sinful in all cases.
There's no interpretation about it. St. Thomas clearly lays out the conditions under which wearing makeup (moderately) entails NO SIN whatsoever, not mortal, not venial.
1) in order to please their husbands
2) following custom
3) to conceal defects
4) maintain the fitness of their state (such as to look good and "put together" so as not to have people think that their husband can't provide for them if they look disheveled ... i.e. look like trailer trash)
I doubt (http://newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm) 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."
Your citation of Thomas is the same one Alphonsus is commenting on when he observes St Thomas in his commentary on Timothy precluding the use of makeup and declaring it sinful in all cases.
So by pointing out the commentary either Alphonsus is pointing out a contradiction in Thomas, or he is saying the Salamancans et al have not understood him.
In any case, what is clear in Alphonsus is that all moralists therein acknowledge the sinfulness of makeup to one degree or another.
“Always” means I’m all cases, not just certain contexts.
You are completely wrong. How many times do I have to point out to you the cases where St. Thomas cites situations or context in which makeup entails no sin whatsoever. Maybe it's the Salamancans who understood St. Thomas correctly, while St. Alphonsus did not. It is most certainly not the case that "all moralists" consider makeup to be a sin. Were the Salamancans themselves not moralists? If the Salamancans were correct in their interpretation of St. Thomas than they and St. Thomas are opposed to the opinion of St. Alphonsus.
“Always” means I’m all cases, not just certain contexts.
It’s as though you want St Thomas to say, “sinful in all cases EXCEPT...”
But he doesn’t, at least not in Timothy, and to make him do so is to make him contradict himself.”
You’ll just have to wait for me to post the pics of the pages.
Yeah, but always is St. Alphonsus' interpretation of St. Thomas, an interpretation with which the Salamancans evidently disagree. St. Thomas does not use this word, and St. Alphonsus is clearly mistaken in this interpretation because St. Thomas does in fact specifically enumerated conditions in which it's NOT sinful.1. You have St Thomas’s commentary on Timothy? In Latin? Could you please post it?
4) in any case it remains clear Alphonsus believes makeup is sinful, an as moralists go, he is greater than St Thomas (whatever ends up being the proper understanding of the latter).
Based on your citation it's not even clear what St. Alphonsus' own opinion is. That's why I want to see his text. It could just be that this is what he's interpreting St. Thomas as saying, while he himself had a more nuanced position. We can't tell from the citations we're working with right now, which is why I asked to see the entire context. And you can't just play the "my moralist" is better than "your moralist" card either. None of these moralists is infallible.Alphonsus is quoting Thomas, not interpreting him, but you’ll see it soon enough.
And it's important to acknowledge also that seeing the Latin would be important. What does the term "makeup" mean? What is the original word? What we call makeup might not be what any of these authorities is even thinking of or writing about. So the terms of any given argument are also important. You can't just whip a sentence fragment out there without full context and understanding of the terms and pretend that it ends all debate on the subject.
As regards the term “makeup,” the quotes in this thread make it clear we are talking about the same thing: face powders and pigments, etc.
What does Catholic Church Teaching have to do with cosmetics?
Ladlislaus claiming that it was in St. Alphonsus' society is very reminiscent of modernists talking about how Church teaching was for before Vatican II and now we need a new one.
If we need to stay COMPLETELY natural, then men should not shave, and people should not wear deodorant.From an article on the history of cosmetics til now:
What does Catholic Church Teaching have to do with cosmetics?
Makeup has exsisted from as far back as ancient historians could find, so it’s not going anywhere, sorry.
Ingredients and applications have changed over the centuries, some were very controversial such as blood letting and leaches for looking paler. Poisons like arsenic and lead were used in makeup during certain periods also. These were dangerous and discouraged by many including church leaders and nobles. (Note: no dogmas by any of the popes in history that I am aware of)
Beauty products have changed since the Middle Ages, and St Thomas’ time in the 1200’s, so frankly there is no comparison.
If you had the common sense to look up what you are commenting about you could form a better argument.
Theologia Moralis: #54, p. 582This is the disputed page.
Pic 5/9
This is the disputed page.This is my current opinion:
In it, St. Alphonsus comments on St. Thomas's Q169/Art 2, and says:
"St. Thomas teaches in 2.2.qu. 169, art. 2, where he says women desiring to please men from vanity, only sin venially whenever they do it."
[He does not mention the exceptions which Ladislaus sees there, but continues in the next word:]
"But in his commentary on the first epistle to Timothy, Ch. 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 makeup, 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 them.""
Is the solution/explanation for that which Ladislaus observes, and that which Alphonsus observes, simply that Thomas is distinguishing between apparel and makeup (i.e., There can be exceptions to apparel, but not to makeup? In other words, there can be some circuмstances in which exceptions can be made for clothing, but makeup is always a deception?
Thank you for posting the copies. Well, the ENTIRE context of the discussion is 1) in the event that a woman notice that a particular man might be tempted to sin by her dress (and St. Alphonsus, for the most part, lumps makeup in with dress) or 2) in the event that a woman believes that it might generally be a temptation to sin to men. And then the context is always if the intent is out of vanity. And finally the context of the makeup issue is on account of men not wanting to be deceived. Women can be justified in some extravagence of dress if allowed by men (their husbands in particular) but St. Alphonsus says that makeup is always a sin based on the assumption that no man would want to be deceived. So that is the rationale he gives.I agree with some of what you say, but a few clarifications:
Also, the "it's always a sin" is not a direct quote from anything I've ever seen from St. Thomas.
Throughout the entire discussion, the three key factors are 1) motivation (active incitement to lust, indifference about inciting to lust, vanity, custom, etc.); 2) effect (does it tempt to sinful lust either a particular individual or a class of individuals); 3) whether it's by permission from their husbands (or otherwise approved of or tolerated by men in general).
There is NO ABSOLUTE STATEMENT being made anywhere to indicate that the wearing of makeup is intrinsically evil regardless of the motivation behind it and its effect.
THE MORALITY OF COSMETICS
Qu. While every right-minded person, lay or clerical, will join me in deploring the lamentable custom or fashion of the present day, in obedience to which young girls paint their faces in a manner that offends all good taste and genuine Christian sentiment, there is a more particular phase of the question about which I wish to consult you. When a penitent accuses herself in confession of having used cosmetics, in other words of having painted according to the prevalent fashion, what is the confessor to think of the gravity of the offence? On the one hand, the authorities on the subject are very severe; evidently they think that it is a mortal sin. On the other hand, I, for one, cannot imagine that some, at least, of those who are guilty of this practice would do it if they felt in any way they were seriously offending God. I say nothing of the opinions of preachers who inveigh against the custom with a vehemence that is hardly justified, unless the offence is mortal. Indeed, I have no faith in the utility or efficacy of these denunciations. I am concerned here with the problem as one meets it in tribunali. What are the principles by which the confessor should be guided?
Resp. The principles are clear enough and definite enough. Noldin, summarizing the doctrine of St. Thomas, says (De Praeceptis n. 107) : “Faciem linire fuco ac pigmentis erit mortale, si fiat ad lasciviam, veniale, si solum ad fingendam pulchritudinem, nullum, si fiat ad occultandum aliquem defectum.” The way is clear for the confessor, then, to discover the motive; for it is evidently the motive, intention, or, as we say, the state of mind of the penitent that determines the gravity of the offence in this case. The first, ad lasciviam, is, we prefer to think, rare; the second is the most likely to be present; and the third is the most difficult for the penitent to confess to. “Because others do it”, is an answer which, we think, may be reduced to the second. It will be seen that in this, as in many other matters, the perplexity arises, not from the principles but from the application of them in particular instances.
(. . .) In turn, Polanco consulted Cajetan's commentary to Aquinas's Summa during his theological studies in Padua.134 It seems clear that Loyola and the first Jesuits prefered to follow the Italian and not Iberian stream of the sixteenth-century Thomistic revival, a preference to which Cajetan contributed significantly (Who quotes Catejan, recites Thomas).135 No wonder the first Jesuits liked Catejan's Summula where he appears "a vigorous champion of medieval tutorism," making his assertions synthetically and securely.137
Cajetan's tutioristic Summula was not safe enough, however, for one of the first companions of Loyola and laster his successor as Superior General of the Society (1558-65), Diego Lainez of a converso family in Castilian Almazan. His rigorously tutoristic "Disputation on usury" (Disputatio de usura, 1554)--"one of the most comprehensive treatments on the issue in the sixteenth century,"138 considered some parts of Cajetan's text too lax. Additionally, Lainez may have not liked Cajetan's views on the relationship of women's dress to venereal excitation. In fact, Cajetan observed that beautiful clothes are suitable for wives in order to be more desirable to their husbands. He also considered blameless the use of cosmetics by (not only married) women, arguing--according to the Aristotelian axiom "art imitates nature"--that where the natural is deficient, it can be compensated for cosmetically.139 For Cajetan, women's fashions are not mortally sinful per se. It is only the woman's intention to arouse sɛҳuąƖ desire in men that makes such intention sinful. Cajetan considered severe Aquinas's statement that a foreseen occurrence resulting from some exterior act increases the moral goodness or evil of the act. The former objected that it would mean that someone who commits a venial sin foreseeing that others will thereby commit mortal sins is himself guilty of mortal sin. Ironically enough, he considered it false based on another Thomistic axiom, according to which what is accidental does not affect the morality of the act.
Lainez countered Cajetan's views in his yet unpublished until recently but very influential "On women's cosmetics and clothes" (De fuco et ornatumulierum), which was used a a vademecuм by early Jesuit preachers.140 It is very interesting to note that Cajetan was the only modern author opponent quoted by this converso Jesuit.141 Cajetan's consideration of women's abuse of make-up and clothes as only venial sin is juxtaposed with the authority of Scripture, of "many very saintly and learned ancient fathers" (plurimos sanctissimos et antiquos patres doctrissimos), as well as reason.142 Although he affirms that there is reason to contradict Cajetan's views, Lainez does not bring up any reasonable arguments except those of doubtful scientific value, as when he tries to frighten women by saying that the make-up applied on the jaws harms teeth.143 Patristic opinions are safe only because they are ancient and saintly, meanwhile their modern opponents (and among them seems to be Cajetan) do not shine by their sanctity (non fulgentibus sanctitate).144
Following some of the Church Fathers, especially Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 215), Lainez allows the use of modest cosmetics and clothes only by married women in order to please their husbands, but only if there is "no bad intention" involved.145 What for Cajetan was imitation of nature, for Lainez (after Clement) is sin against nature.146 The author of "On women's cosmetics and clothes," who considered women less reasonable in judgement and weaker (molliores) than men,147 recommended that husbands take off their wives' ornaments, so they cannot go around [to lead other men into sin], 'as they used to take off feathers from birds, so they cannot fly.'"148 Lainez appreciated Tertullian's (b. ca. 160) praise of Arab women who covered their faces not to be seen by men and proposed in his treatise that women use the veil as "wall for modesty."149
In contrast with Calvinists and Jansenists, the Jesuits and their students would become less rigorous and tutioristic when, according to the curriculum of the newly founded schools, they began to read more Greco-Roman authors and fewer Church Fathers. But "what has Athens to do with Jerusalem?150
2. We ought never to render external adoration to God without having awakened within us the corresponding sentiments of devotion.
He who kneels down, clasps his hands, strikes his breast, without thinking of what he is doing, is little better than a hypocrite. How many people go through the usual ceremonies in the house of God merely from habit, without thinking of what they are doing ! We must not act in this like acquaintances who, meeting casually, re peat a formula of greeting without meaning a word of what they say. The ceremonies we observe when we worship God ought faith fully to express the feelings of our. heart. Christ said to the Samaritan woman that God must be adored in spirit and in truth (John iy.24), that is, exterior worship ought to be the expression of our spiritual worship, and correspond faithfully to the feelings of our heart. Those individuals who make a greater demonstration of devotion than their interior sentiments warrant, are like people who dress above their station, and give themselves out for richer than they really are. Vicious people sometimes make an outward profession of piety, by which they seek to conceal their evil life. In this they resemble those who seek to disguise some unpleasant odor by the use of a powerful perfume, or those who having a bad complexion by nature, employ cosmetics to give it a fictitious beauty and attractive brilliancy. The ancient Egyptians used to embalm dead bodies to preserve them from decomposition. So Satan imbues those who are spiritually dead with the aroma of a spurious piety, that their moral corruption may not be apparent. Persons who make a pretence of piety may be detected by their ostentatious display of devotion and their utter lack of charity. They court observation of their religious practices, accompany their prayers with extravagant gestures, affect a downcast mien, take a prominent part in all Catholic confraternities, and count it a crime not to go to confession on particular days. Meanwhile they do not scruple to conceal a grievous sin in the tribunal of penance, they live in enmity, they slander their neighbor, give no alms and indulge envy. Thus these would-be saints betray their real character as surely as a man betrays his nationality the moment he opens his lips. Piety that is simply external does not last, because it is not the outcome of interior devotion. " Planets and comets," says St. Francis of Sales, " are both luminous, heavenly bodies, and closely resemble each other, but the comets soon dis appear, whereas the planets shine on to all time." So it is with real and unreal devotion. Those who make a pretence of piety render religion contemptible, and deter many right-minded persons from devotional practices, for no one likes to be classed with hypocrites.
We ought to apply the sermons we hear to ourselves. Some are so busy in apportioning what they hear to others, that they leave nothing for themselves. It is recorded in the life of St. Anthony of Padua, and those of other saints, that when they preached against the follies of the day, gambling and love of dress, men brought their cards and dice, women their cosmetics and finery, and burned them in the presence of the preacher. It is not eloquence, but truth, that should attract us in a preacher. If we listen to the simplest discourse in a docile spirit, we are sure to learn something from it. Others will not obey the word of God because the preacher does not practise what he teaches. St. Augustine compares those who will not follow the counsels of a preacher because he himself does not act upon them, to travellers who, coming to a wooden guide-post, will go no further on the road pointed out to them because the guide-post itself is station ary. The preacher is but the instrument of which the divine husband man makes use to sow His celestial seed. Look not at the poverty of the vessel containing the seed, but at the excellence of the grain, and the majesty of the husbandman.
PRAISEWORTHY VANITY
A HUSBAND who is a man of sense as well as a good Catholic proposes this question:
Ought concern for their appearance be something foreign to Christian wives?
He answers the question himself:
“That would be simply ridiculous. I confess that I feel thoroughly enraged when I see women who act as if they were being very virtuous by their slovenly appearance and poor taste in dress. First of all,they commit a fault against beauty and grace which are God’s gifts. But their fault is graver still: Have these noble souls taken care to consult their husbands and to assure themselves that he approves of this treatment? Let them not be surprised then if their husbands look elsewhere for satisfaction. Christian women must know once for all that to dress with taste and even with distinction is not a fault; that to use cosmetics is no fault either unless the results are aesthetically to be regretted; that adornment as such is one of those questions of convention which is purely accidental and remains completely foreign to the moral order. Virtue owes it to itself to be attractive and even strongly attractive. The only thing that must be avoided is excess. There is excess when a Christian woman devotes all the powers of her mind to becoming as exact a copy as possible of the models in Vogue or Charm to the point of neglecting her duty. A woman who for love of dress would ruin her husband, neglect her children or even refuse to have them for fear of spoiling her figure would fail by excess.”
This viewpoint is full of wisdom; it defends right use and at the same time condemns abuse. One of the most ordinary vanities of women is the desire to look young. Husbands are in sympathy with this trait especially when years have rolled over the home. All women need do is purify their intention so as not to offer sacrifice to vanity; they should avoid exaggeration which makes them ridiculous. They might just as well, for no one will be deceived except those who are willing to be. The world is penetrating almost to the degree of the oculist described in the book “The World As I See It”:
This dignified gentleman, wise in the ways of the world, received his patient and listened sympathetically to her symptoms, asked the necessary questions, made his examination and gave his verdict: “Well, it’s plain, you have cataracts. It’s not a disease, it’s sign of age. You told me you were forty-three: I wrote you down in my record as being forty-seven; but you have passed the fifty mark.Don’t be disturbed by this.”
If husbands have the right to demand that their wives try to keep themselves attractive, it is clearly evident that they in turn must do the same.
The wise advice to wives on the subject of personal appearance which was quoted earlier was followed by this equally judicious advice to husbands:“They have a duty to avoid becoming absorbed completely by their professional concerns. They ought to show themselves not only eager to be in their wife’s company but attentive, even loving, and that,whatever be their age. There must be no false modesty or self-consciousness here: a husband owes it to himself to merit each day the love of his wife. Is it right for them to be willing to make the solidity of their home rest solely on the sense of duty they assume their wife possesses? Don’t they ever fear losing her love or do they imagine such fears to be restricted to lovers only? Do they then want to treat their wife less considerately than they would treat a mistress?” Let husbands and wives in wise self-possession enjoy a happy, beautiful, and reverent liberty.
(. . .) Women strove to obtain purity of complexion.156 The lady at toilet, posed with a mirror in scrutiny or admiration of her skin, was an epideicitic theme of renaissance art.157 Not a single vein was to protrude,158 not a wrinkle to surface. Worse was the eruption of blotches (strawberry marks) or freckles, pimples, and sores, for the removal of which there were daunting recipes.159 Renaissance women concocted numerous and various recipes such as facial masks to refresh the skin, cleanse impurities, and slough off dead cells. There were treatments with grains, oils, and creams and with a range of waters distilled from minerals, vegetables, and birds. Such resorts were criticized, echoing classical protestations, as manifestations of the capital vices of lust and pride. In exempla and in sermons moralists excoriated plaster to hide wrinkles and makeup to whiten the skin. By the Stoic topic of nature versus artifice, the use of cosmetics was a refusal of the divine art as imperfect and a disfigurement of the divine creation. Among all creatures only humans were created in the divine image and likeness, so that any falsification of even the body was quasi idolatrous. The coquette was a deviant from humanity, a hybrid in the service of the devil. Her sacrifices for beauty mimicked religious martyrdom. In contrast, a natural beauty of divine origin was praised as a sign of moral character, especially in females of chastity.160
The argument against cosmetics because a woman's face, or other bodily part, was created created in the divine image derived from Christian appropriation of the classical topic of human dignity through erect posture. The argument surfaced in the cosmetic topic. While it blamed women for their practices, it affirmed the essential dignity of their bodies. The apologist Tertullian complained of cosmetic women, who, dissatisfied with the creative skill of God, censured it by adding to his work from a rival artist, the devil. "Whatever is born, that is the work of God." Any addition to that divine handiwork was the invention of the devil.161 The argument developed from the female body as divine art to the female body as divine image. Ambrose maintained that the flesh was not to the divine image, not even in the sense of sight. Yet he imagined humans as truthful and graceful paintings by God. "I speak, also, of women," he affirmed. When women applied white and rogue cosmetics they erased the divine painting. They obliterated the art of the Creator, who became displeased at their ugly and deceitful artifice. "Tell me," asked Ambrose, "if you were to invite an artist of inferior ability to work over a painting of another of superior talent, would not the later be grieved to see his own work falsified?" So he urged, "Do not displace the artistic creation of God by by one of meretricious worth," making a Christian a harlot. To adulterate the work of God was a grave offense. "It is a serious charge to suppose that a human is to be preferred to God as an artist!" God would accuse the cosmetic woman that he did not recognize his colors, or image, or even countenance. He would reject her as his work of art.162 The knight of La Tour-Landry advised his daughters not to use cosmetics, because their visage was "made after God's image."163
The opposition to cosmetics was severe in Spanish manuals, where their application, even by a married woman on her husband's order, was considered a damnable mortal sin. A confessor was to impose his hand against any female who raised hers with rogue rather than virtue. The rational was the acceptance of what God had done and how he had done it as his absolute will. The fatalism not only meant the socioeconomic condition into which a female was born but it also extended to her very physical appearance. IF a woman altered her countenance or figure, moralists feared that, perhaps, God might not recognize her at the last judgement as being in his image.164 Implicit, even explicit, in that argument was the belief that her body was created as his handiwork in his divine image. Luis de Leon (1528-91), editor of Teresa of Avila's El castillo interior, railed for folios in his La perfecta casada against the use of cosmetics. Yet he did so from the premise that a woman was a divine work of art in her very body. From fear of God and from charity toward women, he felt compelled to warn them that "in no manner whatever is it fitting or licit for them to adulterate the work of God and His workmanship by adding either red paint, or stibium, or rogue, or any other admixture which may change or corrupt their natural features." The reason? "God has said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.' and does not any woman make so bold as to alter the semblance of what God had made into something different? Such as these lay hands on God Himself when they try to make over, and change the appearance of what He has formed." As he affirmed, "Every living thing is Go's handiwork," while while deviated from its nature was diabolical. Luis de Leon applied the anology of a master painter justly indignant at a touch-up by an inferior artist. Women who boldly colored their skin would not go unpunished for such perversion and insanity toward the divine artificer. Even if they did not become unchast through the seduction of their paints, because of their corruption and violation of the divine workmanship in themselves they were guilty of a worse adultery. Female bedizening contradicted God's work and betrayed truth. At judgement day the Creator might fail to recognize them, pronouncing with authority and severity: "This is not my handiwork, nor is it in our image: you have muddied your skin with counterfeit makeup, changed your hair into an unnatural color, waged war upon your own countenance, and wrecked it. You have corrupted you face with lies. This is not your true aspect: you cannot behold God.'"165
The polemic was patristic in authority, as old as Cyprian's De habitu virginium, and it contradicted the prevalent theology of women as not created in the divine image. Scholastic doctrine stated that males only were created in the divine image, while females were merely the reflection of that imaged image.166 The cosmetic topic was not only applied to women, moreover. Giovanni Della Casa (1503-56) also censured renaissance men for applied so much make-up to their hands that their appearance was unseemly even for a harlot.167 Yet a female humanist did not necessarily capitalize on the moralizing agent against cosmetics to argue for her own dignity. Laura Cereta (1469-99) in a epistolary exercise typically blamed cosmetic women who "strive by means of exquisite artistry to seem more beautiful than the Author of their beauty decreed." Then, rather than praise natural argument against cosmetics: bodily corruption. "Mindful of the ashes from which we come, we should renounce sins born from desires."168 Yet at the turn of the century Lucrezia Marinella (1571-1653) could argue in La nobilita e l'eccellenze della donne that beauty was a gift from God's hand, so that women had the right to care for and enhance it.169
(such as to look good and "put together" so as not to have people think that their husband can't provide for them if they look disheveled ... i.e. look like trailer trash)I'd like to see an image of someone who'd be described as "trailer trash" that would be elevated to the level of well-provided-for or "put together" if only she were to apply some cosmetics. You have Google at your disposal, so it shouldn't be difficult to find me a few examples.
Noldin, summarizing the doctrine of St. Thomas, says (De Praeceptis n. 107) : “Faciem linire fuco ac pigmentis erit mortale, si fiat ad lasciviam, veniale, si solum ad fingendam pulchritudinem, nullum, si fiat ad occultandum aliquem defectum.”That's a useful summary if only it were in English! : )
PRAISEWORTHY VANITY
A HUSBAND who is a man of sense as well as a good Catholic proposes this question:
Ought concern for their appearance be something foreign to Christian wives?
He answers the question himself:
“That would be simply ridiculous. I confess that I feel thoroughly enraged when I see women who act as if they were being very virtuous by their slovenly appearance and poor taste in dress. First of all,they commit a fault against beauty and grace which are God’s gifts. But their fault is graver still: Have these noble souls taken care to consult their husbands and to assure themselves that he approves of this treatment? Let them not be surprised then if their husbands look elsewhere for satisfaction.
Therefore it is not enough in conscience for a man to judge by himself whether his actions are good or bad. In cases of doubt he must rely on the opinion of those authorized to resolve such doubts. It is not sufficient for businessmen merely to abstain from those contracts which they know to be illegal, if at the same time they continue to make contracts of dubious legality without consulting the experts.
For this reason I disagree with Cardinal Zabarella's affirmation, that if a certain thing which is in fact a venial sin comes to judgement, but all the preachers and confessors who are authorized to judge such matters declare it to be unlawful or pronounce it to be a mortal rather than a venial sin, a person who as a result of his own inclination disregards their verdict and decides in his own conscience that the act is not mortally sinful may perhaps not be committing a sin. The example he gives is the use of cosmetics and other superfluous adornments by women. In point of fact, their use is a venal sin; and if the preachers and confessors pronounce it a mortal sin, the woman who ignores their opinion, convinced by her own craving to prettify herself into believing that the practice is lawful or at most a venal sin, would not in the Cardinal's view be committing a mortal sin by painting herself in this manner. But in my view this is a dangerous principle. Women are obliged to obey the experts in all matters necessary to salvation, and they place themselves in danger of damnation if they commit acts which in the opinion of wise men are mortal sins.
Conversely, therefore, anyone who has first consulted wise men on a doubtful course of action, and has obtained a verdict that it is lawful, may subsequently undertake that course of action with a clear conscience, at least until such time as an equally competent authority pronounces a conflicting opinion which reopens the case, or leads to a contrary verdict. Here, at any rate, the transgressor's innocence is clear, since he did everything in his power to act lawfully, and his ignorance was therefore invincible.
From all this, we may deduce the following propositions:
1. First, in every case of doubt there is a duty to consult with those competent to pronounce upon it, since otherwise there can be no security of conscience, regardless of weather the action concerned is really lawful or unlawful.
2. Second, if the upshot of the consultation with wise men is a verdict that the action is unlawful, their opinion must be respected; and anyone who disregards it has no defense in law, even if the action is in fact lawful in itself.
3. Third, if on the other hand the verdict of the wise is that the action is lawful, anyone who accepts their opinion may be secure in his conscience, even if the action is in fact unlawful.
(. . .)
And if indeed they adorn themselves with this intention (http://newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm) of provoking others to lust (http://newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm), they sin (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm) mortally; whereas if they do so from frivolity, or from vanity for the sake of ostentation, it is not always mortal, but sometimes venial. ...How do you know that the bolded statement refers to makeup and not to the covering of one's hair (which was the previous sentence)?
Yet in this case some might be excused from sin (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), when they do this not through vanity but on account of some contrary custom: although such a custom is not to be commended.
I'd like to see an image of someone who'd be described as "trailer trash" that would be elevated to the level of well-provided-for or "put together" if only she were to apply some cosmetics.That is not going to ever happen. No cosmetic is going to perform such as miracle. "Although the monkey may be dressed in silk, she remains a monkey"
How do you know that the bolded statement refers to makeup and not to the covering of one's hair (which was the previous sentence)?
I'd like to see an image of someone who'd be described as "trailer trash" that would be elevated to the level of well-provided-for or "put together" if only she were to apply some cosmetics. You have Google at your disposal, so it shouldn't be difficult to find me a few examples.
That's a useful summary if only it were in English! : )
.
I think -- a real translation would be welcome -- that it boils it down to:
.
Motive of lust --> mortal sin
Motive of beauty --> venial sin
Motive of covering a defect --> no sin
First of all,they commit a fault against beauty and grace which are God’s gifts
3) The "it's always a sin" most certainly IS a direct quote from St. Thomas (Commentary on the First Epistle of Timothy, Ch. 2).
Basically, you have ignored the most recent response of your primary interlocutor, and simply reiterated what you said previously.
I would like to see you address those arguments.
My guess is not, since St. Thomas says the opposite in the Summa. In any case, neither of us has been able to find the actual text.Translation: Alphonsus made the citation up.
Look, you have ignored EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT and POINT that I have made on this thread, but keep repeating and reposting the same stuff over and over again.You will find your arguments addressed in my primary response, which followed the posting of the pics of Theologia Moralis.
Both St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus categorize both dress and makeup as "adornment", and only distinguish makeup in one or two ways from adornment in general, namely, with regard to the attempt to deceive men. They say that dressing extravagently can be OK because men allow it, but makeup is wrong because men do not want to be deceived. They are also speaking of a completely different style of makeup than the light natural-looking use of makeup that is being discussed here. Men these days, and many husbands, not only allow their wives to wear makeup, but some even insist upon it. So the nature of and attitudes towards makeup have changed since St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus wrote.Nonsense: St Thomas clearly distinguishes between adornment and makeup (in his Commentary on Timothy, which you don’t want to take Alphonsus’s word on), when he says: “But with regard to makeup, it is always a sin...”
Listen, folks, NOTHING PURELY MATERIAL LIKE MAKEUP can ever be considered instrinsically evil. That's the core message of St. Paul against the Jєωs and the Judaizers. Everything is in the effect (does it incite to impurity) and the intent (impurity, vanity, custom, simple grooming). So, now, to extend your principles (since both these authors classify wigs in the same class), a woman who has lost her hair (say, due to chemotherapy) now would be sinning if she wanted to wear a wig. According to your principles, a woman who has acne or splotchy skin or bags under her eyes, etc. now sins if she wishes to cover up some of these defects with a bit of foundation and concealer. That's ridiculous. In fact, St. Thomas EXPLICITLY called out this use of makeup as WITHOUT SIN. Ergo, makeup is not intrinsically evil. From that point, there may be various non-sinful uses of makeup to varying degrees of venially sinful use, and potentially a mortally sinful use (if it's done in such a way as to tempt men against purity).
For those who claim that makeup is intrinsically sinful, you need to answer the question: WHY is it sinful? Strangely, neither St. Thomas nor St. Alphonsus bothered to articulate WHY it would be sinful. How could they have missed that? Oh, wait, they didn't. It's because they did not consider it intrinsically sinful (otherwise they would have explained why it is). Instead, they're always speaking in the context of motivations (vanity, custom, impurity, pleasing their husbands, maintaining their dignity and respectability, etc.). So if they ignore any treatment of the inherent sinfulness and are always treating of the extrinisic considerations like these, then it's clear that they did not consider it intrinsically sinful.
So why would makeup be intrinsically sinful?
Because it's unnatural? Then men shouldn't ever shave their face. Clean-shavenness is unnatural. We should not wear deodorant because it disguises our NATURAL aroma. No earrings (St. Therese wore them in the picture ironically posted by the anti-makeup crowd). No wigs for women who lost their hair from chemo or other illness. In fact, it might even be sinful to use air refreshener to disguise the NATURAL aroma left behind after a bowel movement. For that matter, let's all walk around naked, since that's natural as well. We should never use unnatural medicines. Surgery is unnatural also, so let nature just take its course.
Because it incites to vanity or causes impurity? But it doesn't always and in all cases. Consequently, when these conditions are absent, there's no sin in makeup.
End of story.
We're Catholics, and not Puritanical gnostic Manichaeans.
You will find your arguments addressed in my primary response, which followed the posting of the pics of Theologia Moralis.
Nonsense: St Thomas clearly distinguishes between adornment and makeup (in his Commentary on Timothy, which you don’t want to take Alphonsus’s word on), when he says: “But with regard to makeup, it is always a sin...”
In fact, Cajetan observed that beautiful clothes are suitable for wives in order to be more desirable to their husbands. He also considered blameless the use of cosmetics by (not only married) women, arguing--according to the Aristotelian axiom "art imitates nature"--that where the natural is deficient, it can be compensated for cosmetically.
Let's go back to you first lie, the false allegation that all moralists unanimously agree that cosmetics are sinful.Congratulations!
Congratulations!Oh yeah: I believe someone also dug up the ever-so-authoritative.....Noldin, for you.
You found one!
Now RUN with him against the tide!
Oh yeah: I believe someone also dug up the ever-so-authoritative.....Noldin, for you.
Congratulations!
You found one!
Now RUN with him against the tide!
The point was that you lied (or were grossly ignorant) in declaring moralists to be unanimous in that opinion.To pass of a mistake as a lie is itself a lie, and you stand self-condemned.
And we read St. Thomas says that makeup can be used without sin to conceal defects.And you will note that as the exception because it is based in charity, not vanity (which, were you not so afraid of my refutation, you would go back and respond to it).
Do you not grant that he said this in the Summa passage that I cited?
Do you have a citation to WHERE in Timothy? I think I found a copy.You have the same St Alphonsus reference I have. Go review it. He simply says chapter 2.
Women wear makeup, mainly because they like the way it makes them look. No different than a man combing his hair really - that's if the guy has any hair. If the guy is bald, then it could be compared to the bald guy brushing his teeth. If the bald guy has no teeth, then it could be compared to the bald guy wearing dentures because not only does he think that dentures make him look better, with them in, he can eat food more easily.Hygiene is not makeup.
And you will note that as the exception because it is based in charity, not vanity (which, were you not so afraid of my refutation, you would go back and respond to it).
So what happened to the "always"?If you weren’t so afraid to read my response, you would know.
Now you're claiming that it's because of vanity that it's a sin. So it's not the makeup that is sinful but the vanity? Which one is it?
If you weren’t so afraid to read my response, you would know.
You're the one who's afraid to answer. Answer the question. How is it always when it's not sinful if not done for reasons of vanity?The rest of the forum read my Refutation a day ago. Since then you have made 30 posts without even acknowledging it exists.
The rest of the forum read my Refutation a day ago. Since then you have made 30 posts without even acknowledging it exists.
Should the day ever come, the answer will be right there waiting for you.
I found the commentary from St. Thomas on I Timothy 2.EPIC FAIL:
He does not use the word "always". That's added by St. Alphonsus by way of interpretation.
St. Thomas uses the word "dye, color, or paint" (fucare in Latin).
And he says it's a sin, why, because "men do not wish to be deceived." He says that women are not permitted to be "decorated" (ornari) except on account of men (propter viros) and men do not wish to be deceived. So the REASON he gives is because men do not want painted women. It's not some absolute reason such as it being contrary to nature. It's because men don't want to be deceived by a painted woman. He also speaks about social norms as being a guiding principle.
So, as we've already discussed, the nature of "painting" was much different back then than the light application of natural-looking makeup. Secondly, men's attitudes towards makeup have changed. Men in general do not reject the female use of makeup, and so if a woman's husband permits it, or even encourages it, then the rationale for it being "sinful", as given by St. Thomas, goes away.
Later in the Summa he add the consideration about it being OK to cover up natural defects.
For your reading pleasure:
https://aquinas.cc/236/238/~290
This is a great resource, by the way. Has both English and Latin ... and has all the Scriptural commentaries from St. Thomas. If there's one good thing that came out of this thread, it's that it led me to discover this link.
The Compendium Anglicus from 1240 written by Gilbertus Anglicus, mentions brazilwood chips soaked in rosewater would give a clear, pink dye which can be rubbed on the cheeks. A 13th century French song described in Love Lock'd Out, A Survey of Love, Licence and Restriction in the Middle Ages by James Cleugh refers to a peddlar who carries for sale:
'razors, tweezers, looking glasses, toothbrushes and tooth-picks, bandaus and curling irons, ribbons, combs, mirrors, rosewater... cotton with which they rouge themselves and whitening with which they whiten themselves.'
showing the large range of grooming cosmetics and tools which were in use at the time.
it, then the rationale for it being "sinful", as given by St. Thomas, goes away.
Later in the Summa he add the consideration about it being OK to cover up natural defects.
For your reading pleasure:
https://aquinas.cc/236/238/~290 (https://aquinas.cc/236/238/~290)
This is a great resource, by the way. Has both English and Latin ... and has all the Scriptural commentaries from St. Thomas. If there's one good thing that came out of this thread, it's that it led me to discover this link.
EPIC FAIL:
St Alphonsus did NOT add the word “always” (shall I follow your example and call you a liar for your carelessness now):
The English translation omits the word, BUT IT IS CONTAINED IN THE LATIN ORIGINAL:
“de fucato autem SEMPER est peccatum.”
Semper = Always (which you would have known had you read my response).
You have falsified both Thomas and Alphonsus.
You are correct. I missed it because I skimmed over the entire page quickly. I'm working on other things while engaging in this thread. See, unlike yourself, I'm willing to admit a mistake. So I retract my previous assertion. You, on the contrary, won't retract your original lie that moralists are unanimous in their condemnation of makeup as sinful.Another fail:
But, as with every other response of yours, you refuse to address the reason St. Thomas gives for always. That always is relative to the conditions stipulated just before. What he's saying with that is that the conditions above don't apply because men do not consider it acceptable. It's not an absolute always.
St. Thomas writes that, according to St. Augustine, "simple adornment" is permitted under three conditions (proper intention/motivation, within the bonds of societal custom, and in keeping with a woman's status). But then these conditions do not apply to "paint" because men disapprove of it. In other words, even if the intention is good, society as a whole approves of it, and it's in keeping with a woman's status. We see in the Summa confirmation that the always is not absolute when he stipulates that there's no sin when it's used to conceal defects.
Now kindly post the section of your refutation (or rephrase it) which you believe addresses how the absolute use of always is compatible with the fact that St. Thomas says it's not sinful to use makeup to conceal defects. This supports the fact that the always is used in context as saying the stipulated three conditions do not apply to the case of makeup since men disapprove of it.
:facepalm:Yes, yes, quoting all these saints and doctors has been very uncharitable.
Why does Traditional Catholicism seem to attract puritanistic, Jansenistic, overly-scrupulous, and generally unbalanced people?
For such poor souls, the Faith is nothing but a series of rules, regulations, dogmas and rites.
And for the specific "Anonymous" poster who is whining about women and cosmetics, the boasting, brashness, and lack of charity in his posts tells me he has a great big beam in his eye that he needs to deal with before he focuses on the mote in someone else's.
Another fail:
The rest of the forum, which has read my response (while you persist in avoiding it) , is already aware that I conceded Thomas seems to except from his “always” motives which stem not from vanity, but from charity (eg., hiding disfigurement).
But for motives of vanity, the “always” remains (and it is for precisely such reasons the libertines here have fought to retain their makeup.
I’m not going to repost my whole response for you when you have demonstrated a firm resolve to avoid it, but it’s right after the pics if you ever have a change of heart.
Pax
:facepalm:
Why does Traditional Catholicism seem to attract puritanistic, Jansenistic, overly-scrupulous, and generally unbalanced people?
For such poor souls, the Faith is nothing but a series of rules, regulations, dogmas and rites.
And for the specific "Anonymous" poster who is whining about women and cosmetics, the boasting, brashness, and lack of charity in his posts tells me he has a great big beam in his eye that he needs to deal with before he focuses on the mote in someone else's.
Yes, yes, quoting all these saints and doctors has been very uncharitable.
Translation: Those who would restrict or restrain me are Jansenist and Puritanical.
Pretty much a default argument useful for any topic at all.
Ah, so you finally reveal yourself, Pax. It's no wonder that you don't want to put your name to this ridiculous position.That post was not mine. The anonymous author was signing off using “Pax”. I’ve already posted earlier...
Ah, so you finally reveal yourself, Pax. It's no wonder that you don't want to put your name to this ridiculous position.My final post in this thread, only as a matter of justice:
Either it's "always" or it isn't, Pax.
So by your own admission now, it's the vanity which constitutes sin and not the makeup itself ... since if done without vanity, there's no sin. And that's exactly what some of us have been saying since the beginning of this thread.
So, then, a man who styles his hair in a certain way, perhaps in a way he considers makes him look the best, that's sinful vanity as well?
If a man performs certain grooming activities to make himself appear more masculine than he might otherwise, that's a sin also? So a man might decide whether he wants to be clean-shaven, or have a beard, or a moustache, or a close-cut beard, or a bushy beard ... because that happens to be the look that he prefers, is that sinful vanity also? Is it sinful for a man to use coloring to get rid of some splotchy gray in his facial hair after he gets to a certain age? I've known women who feel that they look a bit masculine and use makeup to "soften" their features. What's wrong with that?
I think that Cajetan had it exactly right, applying the notion that art imitates nature, and that making oneself appear closer to the natural ideal, is perfectly permissible. That's why it's OK for a man to either do his hair or grow his facial hair in such a way as to make him seem the most masculine. And that's why it's OK for a woman to apply a bit of makeup to make her seem softer, smoother, and more feminine.
My final post in this thread, only as a matter of justice:Ironically anonymous posts are like wearing heavy makeup to conceal ones true identity.
Where you humorously thought to have confidently dricovered I was Quid/Croix earlier (epic fail), you now make another blunder in guessing I am Pax.
I am not Pax.
Pax
Ironically anonymous posts are like wearing heavy makeup to conceal ones true identity.This :applause: :applause: :applause:
..
Ironically anonymous posts are like wearing heavy makeup to conceal ones true identity.:applause: Not alll hero’s wear capes.
..
My final post in this thread, only as a matter of justice:
Where you humorously thought to have confidently dricovered I was Quid/Croix earlier (epic fail), you now make another blunder in guessing I am Pax.
I am not Pax.
Pax
That post was not mine. The anonymous author was signing off using “Pax”. I’ve already posted earlier...
Yes, yes, quoting all these saints and doctors has been very uncharitable.Quotes from the Saints are not dogma, and you continue to use them as if they are. Even doctors of the Church have made mistakes. They had opinions like anyone else and are not infallible. So your own opinion matches a few quotes from centuries ago, not exactly theologian material as an anonymous poster on a forum.
Translation: Those who would restrict or restrain me are Jansenist and Puritanical.
Pretty much a default argument useful for any topic at all.
Ironically anonymous posts are like wearing heavy makeup to conceal ones true identity.Ha! That was good. Nearly everyone here uses a screen name to begin with, so you're really hiding out when you bring your topic to the lofty Anonymous subforum!
..
Well, I mistakenly thought that your use of "Pax" with a capital P was intended to reveal your identity.
Have a nice evening, Judith.
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
Both St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus categorize both dress and makeup as "adornment", and only distinguish makeup in one or two ways from adornment in general, namely, with regard to the attempt to deceive men. They say that dressing extravagently can be OK because men allow it, but makeup is wrong because men do not want to be deceived. They are also speaking of a completely different style of makeup than the light natural-looking use of makeup that is being discussed here. Men these days, and many husbands, not only allow their wives to wear makeup, but some even insist upon it. So the nature of and attitudes towards makeup have changed since St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus wrote.That was a long-winded non-answer. FWIW, only 1 person in this thread has said that makeup is a sin in all circuмstances, and it wasn't me.
....
....except that it is unbecoming for women (http://newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) though married (http://newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm) to uncover their hair, since the Apostle (http://newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) commands them to cover the head." Yet in this case some might be excused from sin (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), when they do this not through vanity but on account of some contrary custom: although such a custom is not to be commended.
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).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.
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?
Reply to Objection 2. Cyprian (http://newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm) is speaking of women (http://newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) painting themselves: this is a kind of falsification, which cannot be devoid of sin (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm). Wherefore Augustine (http://newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm) 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 (http://newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm) 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 (http://newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm), but only when it is done for the sake of sensuous pleasure or in contempt of God (http://newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), and it is to like cases that Cyprian (http://newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm) refers.
I've read through much of the discussion but not all as the thread has grown quite long.Me too!
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.
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.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.
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.Isn't that rather the point of the specifics in St. Thomas' work? Of course, everyone in nearly every situation is initially going to claim their motives for doing what they want are good, but providing some concrete guidelines forces people to sincerely evaluate what they are doing and either decide that they are an individual exception to St. Thomas' guidelines, that his teachings are outdated and should be tossed, or that what they're doing does indeed have an element of sin involved. Without knowing the guidelines St. Thomas provided at all, you'll certainly never even bother to question yourself.
I'm thinking if a woman has to shave her face, maybe she'd better be seeking medical attention.It's actually not that unheard of. An imbalance of horomones, namely too much testosterone, can end up plaguing a poor woman with unwanted facial hair.
:D
Anyone got a pic of a saint wearing makeup?How many actual pictures are there of saints
How many actual pictures are there of saintsAnyone read anything in a book by or about a saint wearing makeup?
Surely, if moderate makeup is ok, we will find numerous examples of it in the Lives of the Saints (and other such works by or about the saints).Meant “Holy Ghost.”
I have no doubt they used to put a little on to “feel good about themselves,” “catch a man,” “get ahead in the workplace,” or (the most bizarre excuse) “look good for other women (!).”
It would be nice if some of the makeup’ers could provide some of those stories:
“St. So-and-so would never be seen in public without her lipstick. She knew this was charity: Our bodies are temples of the Hoky Ghost, and we must adorn it thusly, she said. Sitting in front of her mirror, she contemplated how others would perceive her. Her mirror, in a miracle, would often speak to her: ‘You will now be viewed favorably by others. Go Forth!”
The warning at Fatima about immoral fashions pops to mind, since at least in America, women did not generally wear makeup until the early 1920’s “flapper” movement of loose women began to popularize it.
What I am looking for are accounts of the saints wearing light or moderate makeup, which, it has been argued here, is not a moral issue.I don't know of any off the top of my head but are there any royal saints of the English or French courts between the 1300's and 1800's? They would have worn some powder, wig, or blush at some function at a minimum at this point in time.
If that is true, I would expect to find many such accounts.
What I am looking for are accounts of the saints wearing light or moderate makeup, which, it has been argued here, is not a moral issue.
If that is true, I would expect to find many such accounts.
Surely, if moderate makeup is ok, we will find numerous examples of it in the Lives of the Saints (and other such works by or about the saints).
Once again:
If wearing makeup were merely an imperfection, rather than sin, wouldn’t one expect to read about its use in the lives of the saints (since it would not mitigate against sanctity)?
... false. Imperfections do "count against" sanctity. Saints are typically expected to have exercised "heroic virtue".So we don’t see examples of the saints wearing makeup because it is an imperfection?
So we don’t see examples of the saints wearing makeup because it is an imperfection?
All anony posters who are male should not be commenting on what women should or should not do.I gather you sensed the insufficiency of Ladislaus's response, and felt the need to make a better one.
1 (https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-1.htm)JUDGE not, that you may not be judged, 2 (https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-2.htm)For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 (https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-3.htm)Any why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? 4 (https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-4.htm)Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? 5 (https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-5.htm)Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
I gather you sensed the insufficiency of Ladislaus's response, and felt the need to make a better one.Meanwhile the priests, sensing the intransigence of the femenine ire, choose to endorse it, to maintain the semblance of authority and influence.
But your feminist response would have been better lef tunsaid for the weakness of principle it exhibits, which seems to be this:
No male (priest) can tell me whether or not I can wear makeup.
In fact, I find this attitude rather refreshing, since it is the true one which underlies most of the pro-makeup responses in this thread:
"I am woman, and I'm gonna' do what I want to do, and nobody can tell me any different."
Only about a 1/2 step from "Keep your Rosaries off my ovaries."
Meanwhile, the absence of any evidence from the lives of the saints evincing the wearing of makeup among any of them is a rather jarring (and to you, unpleasant) observation.
Surely there were some who, subjectively, did not consider the significance of what they were doing, and their ignorance saved them.
But that there is no mention of makeup in the lives of the saints is interesting.
Were we to research the entire Migne, would we have any better luck coming up with...something?
Yeah, but they wore excessive makeup that made them look like clowns, ...This line of reasoning has been repeated several times, but I don't understand the logic at all.
Small, modest amounts of makeup is not a transgression against God. It's not prideful or an act of deception or revolt.
But cosmetics now are WAY different than 100, 200 or 500 yrs ago. Comparing apples to oranges, both in product and also in why people used the product (ie intent).They may be different, but I don't think it's beyond our ability to compare and contrast the two both in type and in motivation as demonstrated by how/when/where it is used.
But cosmetics now are WAY different than 100, 200 or 500 yrs ago. Comparing apples to oranges, both in product and also in why people used the product (ie intent).Apples to apples:
All anony posters who are male should not be commenting on what women should or should not do.
1 (https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-1.htm)JUDGE not, that you may not be judged, 2 (https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-2.htm)For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 (https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-3.htm)Any why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? 4 (https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-4.htm)Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? 5 (https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-5.htm)Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Google prostitute makeup and look at the images.Makeup such as that would be mortally sinful and, as no one has suggested otherwise, not really relevant to this conversation.
Of you look like that, it's too much.
hottiesCould you stop saying that, please?
Could you stop saying that, please?Seriously please. You guys honestly have no idea what a woman is thinking so please just stop. If you want to keep hating on women head over to Mgtow reddit or ask the red pill reddit. Have a ball there! You get to talk as degrading as you’d like about women.
28 pages of posts debating something that could so easily be cleared up by discussing it with a well-formed Trad priest. :jester:Essentially, you are arguing women need to wear makeup in the workplace to gain the respect of men.
Here's a scenario:
Queen Elizabeth II, as head of state, occupies a position of power (albeit limited), influence, and leadership in Great Britain and the other commonwealth nations. She's 92 years old. Even though I haven't found any photos of her without makeup, one can imagine what she looks like without it.
She is, for all practical purposes, Great Britain. When she meets other heads of state, addresses parliament, appears in public or on television, etc., her appearance reflects on the nation, her own position, and the British monarchy in general. A miserable appearance on her part could bring derision to her office and a lack of confidence in her and her position, undermining her credibility. One only has to imagine her appearing in public in a frumpy dress to see what that would be like.
For the good of the nation and the commonwealth, for the sake of her office, is it permissible for her to wear makeup?
[We] excuse from mortal sin those who because of a local custom expose their breasts, or use makeup, pigments or fake hair, so long as they are doing it only to appear more beautiful, not out of a lascivious motive, or with some other mortally sinful intent, or if there is a particular law prohibiting something in particular under pain of mortal sin. (Moral Theology, Book 2, Treatise 3, On Charity, Chapter 2.54, trans. Mark K. Spencer)St. Alphonsus says that women can follow their local customs of wearing makeup without committing mortal sin so long as they have no sinful intent, as I said above. Nevertheless, he holds it is often a venial sin even if it is done just to please one’s husband or to appear more beautiful.
Essentially, you are arguing women need to wear makeup in the workplace to gain the respect of men.
Many women believe this, and in each case they are total idiots: It is not respect men are giving them, but a willingness to have them in the workplace so long as they are sɛҳuąƖly gratifying to look upon.
In other words, they have objectified women, and women have accepted being objectified, thereby cheapening themselves.... snip
In all your verbiage, you never addressed the scenario.LMHO:
Do you understand the distinction between a "woman in the workplace" and a head of state?
For the good of the nation and the commonwealth, for the sake of her office, is it permissible for her to wear makeup?
::)
For the good of the nation and the commonwealth, for the sake of her office, is it permissible for her to wear makeup?
God has made each woman beautifully with his own design, and society has told her that her face is not good enough as it is
But would much have preferred the pot-smoking icon.
// "God has made each woman beautifully with his own design, and society has told her that her face is not good enough as it is" //
Pretty lie.
Most people of this world are actually quite ugly. It is just a result of original sin and natural propagation.
As far as the "objectification of women", I find it very funny that it is usually the women who have already lost all sɛҳuąƖ allure or never had it to begin with, who love to pontificate on the subject.
She came back from the job interview with a job offer in hand. As I talked to her about the student work position on our college campus, she mentioned that her new boss told her that she would be expected to wear makeup at her job. While I knew that women often wore makeup to work, I had never been required to wear it to work. I felt a little upset for my friend who sat through being told by a man that she — a young, pretty woman — had to wear makeup while men who worked in the same workplace had no such requirement.
Up to this point it had seemed normal to me that one would choose to wear makeup in a professional or formal setting, but when it was imposed on my friend I started to feel that there was a problem with it. With so many women coming out with their stories and accusations of men treating them with impropriety, we need to dig deeper into the causes of this problem. The expectation that women use cosmetics is just one of many contributing factors our society’s tendency to reduce women to objects to be used rather than human persons to be loved.
This line of reasoning has been repeated several times, but I don't understand the logic at all.
.
The saints who've declared makeup to be a venial sin specifically addressed the deception involved.
.
Now that makeup has changed to the point that the ideal is such that the average observer doesn't know you're wearing makeup, it is suddenly not deceptive? (and likewise not a venial sin?) I'd think it's even MORE deceptive because not only are you concealing your true appearance (as the "clown face" would do), but also possibly leading others to believe that which is artificial really is your true appearance.
::)How many times can I say no?
For the good of the nation and the commonwealth, for the sake of her office, is it permissible for her to wear makeup?
Essentially, you are arguing women need to wear makeup in the workplace to gain the respect of men.Thought maybe you needed to read this again, er, for the first time?
Many women believe this, and in each case they are total idiots: It is not respect men are giving them, but a willingness to have them in the workplace so long as they are sɛҳuąƖly gratifying to look upon.
In other words, they have objectified women, and women have accepted being objectified, thereby cheapening themselves.
Here is one Catholic woman's take on it: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/sspencer/cosmetics-and-the-objectification-of-women
(http://www.ncregister.com/images/uploads/Spencer-MAKEUP.jpg)
François Boucher, “Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson, Marquise de Pompadour”, 1758
BLOGS (http://www.ncregister.com/sections/blog) | DEC. 18, 2017
Cosmetics and the Objectification of Women
“Since God himself is now near us, we can know him. He shows us his Face and enters our world.” —Pope Benedict XVI
Susanna (http://www.ncregister.com/blog/sspencer) Spencer
She came back from the job interview with a job offer in hand. As I talked to her about the student work position on our college campus, she mentioned that her new boss told her that she would be expected to wear makeup at her job. While I knew that women often wore makeup to work, I had never been required to wear it to work. I felt a little upset for my friend who sat through being told by a man that she — a young, pretty woman — had to wear makeup while men who worked in the same workplace had no such requirement.
Up to this point it had seemed normal to me that one would choose to wear makeup in a professional or formal setting, but when it was imposed on my friend I started to feel that there was a problem with it. With so many women coming out with their stories and accusations of men treating them with impropriety, we need to dig deeper into the causes of this problem. The expectation that women use cosmetics is just one of many contributing factors our society’s tendency to reduce women to objects to be used rather than human persons to be loved.
When a woman is expected to cover her face with makeup in order to alter her appearance, to look more “professional,” or to be more attractive to men she is covering up an important part of herself: her face. Our face is the part of the human body that leads most directly to our interior self. They make present to us the other person. We recognize people through their faces. We communicate through our faces. When we venerate icons Christ, Our Lady, and the Saints we venerate images of their faces, because the face shows us who someone is.
God has made each woman beautifully with his own design, and society has told her that her face is not good enough as it is. It has told her that she does not have value if she does not paint her features to fit a certain standard. In the professional world men often criticize and devalue women who do not wear makeup. Or a woman might decide to wear makeup in order to manipulate men through causing them to lust after her or to force them to respect her position in society—and in that case she is objectifying both herself and the man. This is a grave inequality our society has imposed on women, and a problem that serious Christians should not ignore as men and women are equal under God. (Gal. 3:2)
The history of the Church’s thought on the morality of individuals’ choices of dress and ornamentation has always been guided by social custom and social status. What is the norm in society has always been acceptable, given that a person does not have sinful intentions with his or her mode of dress. It is morally sound to base our decisions in how we dress and present ourselves on the customs of our society given that how we dress respects other people and our own bodies. St. Frances De Sales says in his Introduction to the Devout Life that “propriety in dress consists in material, fashion and cleanliness,” and as “to the material and fashion of clothes, propriety in these respects depends on various circuмstances such as time, age, rank, those with whom you associate; and it varies on different occasions.” (III.25) When reflecting on these thoughts and the use of cosmetics, it would seem that there is no problem with a woman choosing to wear makeup to fit in with society.
But what if society is wrong? The tradition of the Church has held, while it is not wrong to follow societal customs, it is wrong to be the one to introduce or promote an immoral behavior that is not yet a social custom. The fact of the matter is that the use of cosmetics has been considered as a moral issue throughout the history of the Church.
St. Alphonsus Liguori (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01334a.htm), whom the Church has named the doctor of moral theology, talks about makeup and other modes of dress in his text Moral Theology. In this text, which is designed to help confessors, he distinguished between mortal (grave) and venial (lesser) sins in each act. He says this about practices that are traditionally seen as immoral:St. Alphonsus says that women can follow their local customs of wearing makeup without committing mortal sin so long as they have no sinful intent, as I said above. Nevertheless, he holds it is often a venial sin even if it is done just to please one’s husband or to appear more beautiful.
St. Thomas Aquinas considers the question of makeup in the Summa Theologiae (II-II, 169.2 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3169.htm#article2)). He gives several circuмstances in which one might use it with a sinful intent. Firstly, it could be a source of vanity. A woman who uses cosmetics as part of her dress may feel vain about her appearance and afraid of others’ opinions of her were she not to wear it. Secondly, it is wrong to use cosmetics with the intention of leading another person into lust or to control another individual, such as when a woman uses makeup with a specific intention to be desired by and attractive to a person who should not desire her. Both of these intentions seem to contribute to our societal problem of the objectification of women through the social expectation of their use of cosmetics.
Besides these intentions or the person using cosmetics, St. Thomas Aquinas sees as a separate moral problem: the fact that cosmetics cover a person’s face. He says that the use of makeup to change or cover one’s face is a kind of lie. He quotes St. Augustine who says, “To dye oneself with paints in order to have a rosier or a paler complexion is a lying counterfeit.” (ST, 169.2, Reply. Obj. 2 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3169.htm)) In some cases the use of makeup does not completely cover or alter one’s face and would seem less of a deceit. (St. Thomas Aquinas does point out that using makeup to conceal a blemish but not change one’s whole appearance is not problematic so long as it is done with the right intention.) Yet, so often makeup completely covers a woman’s face or changes her appearance so that she does not look anything like she does naturally. With this being the case, we need to consider more deeply than we have before what this kind of lie is doing to women and men in our society.
Like I said before, we encounter the presence other human beings in the face. Babies look into the faces of their parents when they eat. Couples who are in love gaze at and are in awe of each other’s faces. We teach our children to make eye contact in order to be respectful. When one uses makeup to change one’s coloring and alter one’s looks it covers up the truth that is a person’s face. It tells a visual falsehood about what one really looks like and presents one as different from what they actually are. Further, if used with the wrong intention, it could also be an act of ingratitude as it, in a sense, “defaces” the work of God and the natural beauty he gave to that person.
What can we do about this social custom? For some of us, going against it would be problematic for our careers and our positions in life. For others of us, perhaps it is time to change how we use makeup. We are called to look seriously at our intentions about how we use cosmetics in our dress. We should also think about how we view people who do and do not wear makeup, for we could be contributing to the objectifying of others. Remember: we are not called as Christians to dress sloppily, but to honor our whole person and others in how we dress. St. Paul reminds us “that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel” (1 Tim 2:9). I not am questioning presentable, careful dress, but am questioning the use of cosmetics as something that defaces our God given features and the imposition by society on women to use it to objectify themselves.
This piece could have been easily written by a SJW feminist, and not a Catholic woman. No wonder why they're so ugly. Same as the pretty lie above. Feminists really HATE the pretty woman. They know they can't compete so they revolt against the effort.Ahh, but it wasn't!
How many times can I say no?Once would have been enough. Glad you finally got around to it.
In your preposterous scenario, where the very existence of England is imperiled if the queen runs out of blush ( :o), what you are really suggesting is that the ends justify the means.
They don't.
Once would have been enough. Glad you finally got around to it.The sovereign brings disdain to her office were she to present herself as a bimbo.
The logical-minded would not find the scenario "preposterous", and your attempts to paint it that way are deceiving (along with posting anonymously).
When it comes to holding an office, of any type, there are two considerations: The OFFICE itself, and the holder of the office. If a queen has any respect for her office, or if she wishes those subject to her to have respect for it, there are certain things she must do, and certain things she must avoid doing. If she appears at an official function dressed like a commoner, she undermines her office and the respect due to it. When it comes to external appearances, not only is the clothing, hygiene, and comportment to be taken into consideration, but also the complexion. There are a number of reasons why wearing makeup IS permitted, even according to moral theologians, among those reasons are justice (the scenario outlined here) and charity (consideration of others).
If, by a haggard complexion, a sovereign brings disdain to the office, she does real damage to her credibility and the view that her subjects have of her office. A good example can be readily seen when people make fun of Trump because of his orange face, or his peculiar hairstyle.
The Catholic religion is eminently reasonable, as is the moral law. You treat the notion of using makeup in any scenario as if it were intrinsically evil. You are particularly unbalanced, and this trend among Trads of finding quotes and running with them, without consideration of the context, and without proper theological training, is disturbing. People such as yourself find sin hiding under every rock.
Ahh, but it wasn't!
It was written by a Catholic woman studying St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguori.
Which between you and her is the ugly and the beauty?
The one whose soul doth magnify the Lord, by studying His religion and yielding to the teachings of His doctors?
Or the hottie who bristles against them, defiant, and declaring those who remain faithful are ugly Puritans?
I'm assuming you're the anonymous poster I've been discussing with. With all this hiding behind the internet, it can be deceiving who is saying what. I find it impressive the way you rail against "deception" on the one hand, and practice it with such alacrity on the other.
A Catholic woman studying the faith and yielding to the teachings of the doctors is fine and dandy. But when she presumes to start teaching doctrine and morality, that's a different matter altogether. She'll find some great advice in St. Paul's first letter to St. Timothy (chapter 2).
The sovereign brings disdain to her office were she to present herself as a bimbo.So you agree with the core principle? Wonderful! That's settled then.
So you agree with the core principle? Wonderful! That's settled then.
Pretty lie.
Most people of this world are actually quite ugly. It is just a result of original sin and natural propagation.
As far as the "objectification of women", I find it very funny that it is usually the women who have already lost all sɛҳuąƖ allure or never had it to begin with, who love to pontificate on the subject.
But here's the point they're making that appears to have been missed here. They hold that deception is wrong because "men do not wish to be deceived". They say that women who dress extravagantly do not sin because they do so at the behest of and with the permission of men.Which quote are you referring to here? I re-read the commentary on Timothy and the Summa article, but haven't found where this was said.
Which quote are you referring to here? I re-read the commentary on Timothy and the Summa article, but haven't found where this was said.
But with regard to makeup, 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 them.
Let us define terms.The use of makeup solely to cover "disfigurement arising from some cause such as sickness or the like" has not been said to be sinful by any saint quoted here nor anyone participating in this thread. On the contrary, it's the one use that everyone agrees is completely without sin.
Is "makeup" something women wear to cover up scars from skin cancer, or temporary blotches as a side effect of medicines?
Or is "makeup" something women wear in order to attract attention?
I am going with the former definition.
Cited by St. Alphonsus from St. Thomas on Timothy:Thank you. I was reading a less-explicit translation.
For mere men to opine their subjective opinion as to what is a sin (one which, in this case being male, they themselves are incapable of committing) is to seek out the mote in the other’s eye while ignoring the log in their own.
That's not necessarily the case; often people are merely trying to inform their own consciences.
Let us define terms.
Is "makeup" something women wear to cover up scars from skin cancer, or temporary blotches as a side effect of medicines?
Or is "makeup" something women wear in order to attract attention?
I am going with the former definition.
That's not necessarily the case; often people are merely trying to inform their own consciences.If posters here are "trying to inform their own consciences," most posters here would be women. It's obvious that most posters here are male -- the same ones who said women should not be allowed to lessen the pain of childbirth.