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.

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.

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.

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.

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:
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.
..

That post was not mine.  The anonymous author was signing off using “Pax”.  I’ve already posted earlier...

Ironically anonymous posts are like wearing heavy makeup to conceal ones true identity.
..