Note to readers: You must be logged in to see the pics/docs

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.

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.

I see someone already quoted St. Alphonsus' Moral Theology. I haven't found much. I'm mostly searching using "cosmetics". Far too much to wade through using "make-up".


The Ecclesiastical Review, Volume 59

The Morality of Cosmetics, page 199

https://books.google.com/books?id=3hNJAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq

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.

Saint Cicero and the Jesuits: The Influence of the Liberal Arts on the Adoption of Moral Probabilism

From "Search Inside This Book"

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0754662934/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0754662934&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 />
Page 74-75

(. . .) 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

The Catechism Explained, pg 311-312:

https://archive.org/details/catechismexplain00spiruoft/page/312

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.

The Catechism Explained, pg 571:

https://archive.org/details/catechismexplain00spiruoft/page/570

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.

Christ in the Home, Fr. Raoul Plus, S. J.

https://www.scribd.com/docuмent/47333401/Christ-in-the-Home-by-Raoul-Plus-S-J

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.

Senses of Touch: Human Dignity and Deformity from Michelangelo to Calvin

https://books.google.com/books?id=AsxGZ1UqBDcC&pg=PA124&lpg

pg. 124-127

(. . .) 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

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! : )
.
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

Francisco de Vitoria

Vitoria: Political Writings

Using the Search Inside This Book fuction

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/052136714X/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=052136714X&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 />

p. 236-237

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 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. ...

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.

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)?

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)?

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.

Listen, folks, NOTHING PURELY MATERIAL LIKE MAKEUP can ever be considered instrinsically evil.  That's the core message of St. Paul against the Jews 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.

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

He also speaks of other motives ... vanity, complying with custom, conforming to one's estate, pleasing one's husband.

But the key word here in all of these is "MOTIVE".  It's all about the motive and about the effect that it would have.

I think that people also confuse "motive of beauty" vs. "motive of vanity".  It's natural for people and women to seek BEAUTY.  That's why Cajetan says that makeup is a good in so far as it supplies a beauty that should be there and the absence of which is a defect.

Also, the one quote that someone posted above:

First of all,they commit a fault against beauty and grace which are God’s gifts

Don't we speak of God being beautiful?  Isn't good beautiful and evil ugly?  Yes, in fallen nature, it can be a slippery slope from seeking beauty to being vain, but that's not intrinsically the case.  Beauty is a GOOD.  So many Traditional Catholics treat beauty as if it were effectively an evil.  Aren't men and women who dress nicely seeking beauty?  Is it inherently vain to dress nicely?  Many women think of makeup as part of getting dressed and part of grooming ... and rightly so.