We've had long discussion threads about this.  There can be some relatively-slight use of makeup where it does not so much constitue a "mask" that alters one's appearance as a much as an act similar to grooming.  We have to be careful about absolute statements like the one in your OP, since absolute statements about material things without considering the formal aspect (both apply in every case of moral theology) ... as it that's the type of un-nunanced and non-distinguished thinking that turns people into Puritans vs. Catholics.  Drinking alcohol is evil.  X, Y, and Z are evil.

Back to the point.  If a woman (or a man) does up their hair or wear a certain hairstyle, is that also "evil" for the same "principles" laid out above?  What about powdering your hair?  What about the case of a young lady or young man who have skin issues (such as acne).  In that case, putting a little makeup on would be in the same category as putting  a bandage on a festering / puss-filled sore so other people wouldn't have to look at it.

I believe that a LIGHT application of makeup that doesn't significantly alter one's appearance and not motivated by seeking impure attention might be considered licit and in the same category as grooming.  If you promote everything all natural, you'd never cut or style your hair, never trim your toenails or your nose hair or ear hair ... like the hippie women in the 1960s who enjoyed displaying ample armpit hair.

So in the quotes from the Fathers you posted, note the implied FORMAL principles.

Tertullian:  adding to the work of God and "painting" ... altering creation
St. Clement: beautify themselves ... lying
St. John Chrysosom:  unnatural PAINTs seeking to be more beautiful
St. Augustine:  provoking lust

Formal Motive ... to provoke lust.  Clearly sinful.  PAINT (aka heavy application) to alter one's (created) appearance ... deceptive and vain.

Thus, as I stated above, a light application (vs. PAINT) that does not significantly alter one's appearance and not motivated by seeking impure attention could be licit.  Is all "beautifying beyond nature" evil?  Should I not use soap to clean myself or shampoo on my hair?  Should I never trim my beard, shave my armpits?  Can a woman never style her hair?  These all "alter nature" with the point of enhancing one's appearance.  If you're disfigured or have an outbreak on your face / body, civility requires covering these up so people don't have to see such things.  There's no absolute principle in "naturality" ... otherwise we'd walk around naked, wouldn't groom ourselves, use soap (let the natural oils build up as God intended) etc.  There's also no absolute principle in beautification (or, rather, de-uglification) if one wants to cover certain blemishes, etc.  There's no absolute principle in wanting to look good ... to a point.  Otherwise, people should show up to Mass un-groomed and looking like slobs, right?  There's a balance between a dignified look, where you dress nice, look nice, are neatly groomed, but it doesn't cross that line into being ostentatious, drawing attention (being a slob or ungroomed could also draw attention), substantially change nature (with heavy paints), and seeking impure attentions.

If some man or woman showed up at Mass un-groomed, obviously in need of a haircut, with unkempt hair, exhibiting (ever-so-natural) body odor due to lack of deodorant, bad breath due to not having brushed his teeth, dirty clothes ... I'd consider that a disrespect toward the Blessed Sacrament and a Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  But if you turn those principles incorrectly into absolutes, showing up like this might be virtuous, and those who groom themselves, bruth their teeth, use deodorant, and dress nicely (wearing nice clothese is vain beautification, no?) would be the sinners, right?

As with all matters or moral theology, it does depend on the motivation, right?  I could see someone who's dressed poorly because he can't afford better and is ashamed, someone might show up dressed in shabby clothes because he can't afford any more (say a homeless person who sneaks into Mass) or else a person might show up that way because he just doesn't care and has little respect for the Mass and the Blessed Sacrament.  In one case there's no sin and perhaps even an increase in humility, while in the latter (perhaps they're dressed identically) there's sin.  On the other extreme someone might be proud of his appearance in an $800 suit and look down upon the other "scuм" who could afford only a cheap off-label one.  It's all about the motivation, the formal aspect.

You may have a woman who applies a lot of makeup to attrack impure attention from men, but you may have another who puts a little on just to cover up some unsightly acne or otherwise puts on a light layer where her mindset is little different than if she were combing her hair or brushing her teeth or applying a bit of deodorant.

We've had long discussion threads about this.  There can be some relatively-slight use of makeup where it does not so much constitute a "mask" that alters one's appearance as a much as an act similar to grooming.  We have to be careful about absolute statements like the one in your OP, since absolute statements about material things without considering the formal aspect (both apply in every case of moral theology) ... as it that's the type of un-nuanced and non-distinguished thinking that turns people into Puritans vs. Catholics.  Drinking alcohol is evil.  X, Y, and Z are evil.


You may have a woman who applies a lot of makeup to attract impure attention from men, but you may have another who puts a little on just to cover up some unsightly acne or otherwise puts on a light layer where her mindset is little different than if she were combing her hair or brushing her teeth or applying a bit of deodorant.

Thank you for this, Lad.  I don't have acne, but I have severe rosacea, which is quite unsightly when it flares up.  I apply makeup as an act of mercy and charity toward my neighbor.  

I'm getting tired of reading so many absolutes and blanket generalizations constantly spouted on this forum lately.   Good grief.  

We've had long discussion threads about this.  There can be some relatively-slight use of makeup where it does not so much constitue a "mask" that alters one's appearance as a much as an act similar to grooming.  We have to be careful about absolute statements like the one in your OP, since absolute statements about material things without considering the formal aspect (both apply in every case of moral theology) ... as it that's the type of un-nunanced and non-distinguished thinking that turns people into Puritans vs. Catholics.  Drinking alcohol is evil.  X, Y, and Z are evil.

Back to the point.  If a woman (or a man) does up their hair or wear a certain hairstyle, is that also "evil" for the same "principles" laid out above?  What about powdering your hair?  What about the case of a young lady or young man who have skin issues (such as acne).  In that case, putting a little makeup on would be in the same category as putting  a bandage on a festering / puss-filled sore so other people wouldn't have to look at it.

I believe that a LIGHT application of makeup that doesn't significantly alter one's appearance and not motivated by seeking impure attention might be considered licit and in the same category as grooming.  If you promote everything all natural, you'd never cut or style your hair, never trim your toenails or your nose hair or ear hair ... like the hippie women in the 1960s who enjoyed displaying ample armpit hair.

So in the quotes from the Fathers you posted, note the implied FORMAL principles.

Tertullian:  adding to the work of God and "painting" ... altering creation
St. Clement: beautify themselves ... lying
St. John Chrysosom:  unnatural PAINTs seeking to be more beautiful
St. Augustine:  provoking lust

Formal Motive ... to provoke lust.  Clearly sinful.  PAINT (aka heavy application) to alter one's (created) appearance ... deceptive and vain.

Thus, as I stated above, a light application (vs. PAINT) that does not significantly alter one's appearance and not motivated by seeking impure attention could be licit.  Is all "beautifying beyond nature" evil?  Should I not use soap to clean myself or shampoo on my hair?  Should I never trim my beard, shave my armpits?  Can a woman never style her hair?  These all "alter nature" with the point of enhancing one's appearance.  If you're disfigured or have an outbreak on your face / body, civility requires covering these up so people don't have to see such things.  There's no absolute principle in "naturality" ... otherwise we'd walk around naked, wouldn't groom ourselves, use soap (let the natural oils build up as God intended) etc.  There's also no absolute principle in beautification (or, rather, de-uglification) if one wants to cover certain blemishes, etc.  There's no absolute principle in wanting to look good ... to a point.  Otherwise, people should show up to Mass un-groomed and looking like slobs, right?  There's a balance between a dignified look, where you dress nice, look nice, are neatly groomed, but it doesn't cross that line into being ostentatious, drawing attention (being a slob or ungroomed could also draw attention), substantially change nature (with heavy paints), and seeking impure attentions.

If some man or woman showed up at Mass un-groomed, obviously in need of a haircut, with unkempt hair, exhibiting (ever-so-natural) body odor due to lack of deodorant, bad breath due to not having brushed his teeth, dirty clothes ... I'd consider that a disrespect toward the Blessed Sacrament and a Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  But if you turn those principles incorrectly into absolutes, showing up like this might be virtuous, and those who groom themselves, bruth their teeth, use deodorant, and dress nicely (wearing nice clothese is vain beautification, no?) would be the sinners, right?

As with all matters or moral theology, it does depend on the motivation, right?  I could see someone who's dressed poorly because he can't afford better and is ashamed, someone might show up dressed in shabby clothes because he can't afford any more (say a homeless person who sneaks into Mass) or else a person might show up that way because he just doesn't care and has little respect for the Mass and the Blessed Sacrament.  In one case there's no sin and perhaps even an increase in humility, while in the latter (perhaps they're dressed identically) there's sin.  On the other extreme someone might be proud of his appearance in an $800 suit and look down upon the other "scuм" who could afford only a cheap off-label one.  It's all about the motivation, the formal aspect.

You may have a woman who applies a lot of makeup to attrack impure attention from men, but you may have another who puts a little on just to cover up some unsightly acne or otherwise puts on a light layer where her mindset is little different than if she were combing her hair or brushing her teeth or applying a bit of deodorant.

This is just unecessary justification, all make up is bad and the line is easily drawn.

Styling ones hair is okay, although St Paul does say to not wear excessive pleats at church 1 Timothy 2:9 (ESV) "Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire." make up to cover up acne is wrong. Any amount of make up is wrong. Make up to cover up acne is not a "bandage" because it doesn't heal your acne and it doesn't stop it bleeding like a bandage does. Deodorant or perfume should be avoided in certain because it is innapropriate.

The motive is not solely to promote lust, the motive is to alter ones appearance from how God has made it (brushing or styling your hair doesn't do that) in order to appear more attractive to others. Grooming is completely different to make up. Making ones appearance presentable is different to making one desirable for the opossite sex which is the sole purpose of make up and that is inextricably attached to lust ESPECIALLY if you're in a relationship.

Modesty applies in all situations you're right including dress and that is up to the discernment of the person, but there is no justification for make up, ever. 

Here is an historical perspective --

In the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, Catholic (as well as Anglican) women AND MEN wore makeup regularly. It was a distinguishing feature that separated Catholics from Calvinists, in fact, both make-up AND LONG HAIR.

A Catholic (Karl VII, Herzog in Bayern, 1697-1745) --



And a Protestant (Robert Whighte of Messing, Essex, 1560-1617) --

I do have a love for natural women, but this is the kind of thing on which we need to have a balanced view. Otherwise we are soon saying that men should not shave and that to shower more than once a week is vanity.

I believe this argument tactic is called "reductio ad absurdem", I never said we shouldn't wash ourselves with soap or shower, I said we should never wear make up.

Evidently you don't comprehend the argument.  I spent a lot of time only it only for it to be distorted here.  I never said you or anyone holds that we shouldn't groom ourselves.  So the point is the opposite, that a certain relatively modest amount of makeup could be in the same category as grooming.  This notion that you have to accept nature as-is cannot without absurdity be taken as some ABSOLUTE principle, otherwise you would have to forego most grooming.  So it it's not an absolute principle, what are the boundaries.  You try to absurdly and Puritanically asssert that all makeup, regardless of the amount used and the motive for using it is somehow intrinsically evil.  It's not.  So one must lay down the distinctions.