Is makeup against modesty?

[Mono no aware]

Has makeup, all by itself, ever encouraged lust? If you took the typical trad girl in the blouse and very long skirt, and put a full face of makeup on her, would she suddenly become provocative?

Probably not.

I think Jim is suffering under the delusion that we're still living in the first century.  Times have changed.  Look at it this way, Jim.  In 1 Timothy 2:9, St. Paul wrote that as much he desires "that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men," he also desires "in like manner women in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire."  Well, we know that Catholic women can braid their hair and wear jewelry and pearls and expensive dresses.  Even most Protestants don't keep to this line of scripture anymore, unless they're part of some bizarre and satanic Protestant cult like the Amish and the Quakers.  Many of the Early Church disciplines have been done away with, and we can count ourselves blessed for that.  It's fine for women to look glamorous and exquisite.  Dowdiness and frumpiness just weigh down the soul.

[Kaesekopf]

Dowdiness and frumpiness just weigh down the soul.

If only more realized this....

[Mithrandylan]

Dowdiness and frumpiness just weigh down the soul.

If only more realized this....

What is frumpy?

Does it just refer to dress?

Our dress is generally an extension of our interior life.  An indicator, so to speak.

[Mono no aware]

What is frumpy?

Does it just refer to dress?

Our dress is generally an extension of our interior life.  An indicator, so to speak.

Frumpy is things such as: no make-up, long uncomfortable dresses, clompy shoes, bland hair.  Essentially, stylistic boredom.  Bleak minimalism.  Who could possibly be spiritually joyful in such outward trappings?  Make-up is a way of beautifying the human face; it's taking the natural creation and just jazzing it up a little bit, making it prettier.  After all, nobody's perfect.

[LouisIX]

I don't understand why balance and moderation are so hard for folks to agree upon.

It's either "No make-up at all!" or "Any Catholic who ever discusses makeup on moral grounds is a Jansenist."

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Mithrandylan]

I don't understand why balance and moderation are so hard for folks to agree upon.

It's either "No make-up at all!" or "Any Catholic who ever discusses makeup on moral grounds is a Jansenist."

This is why we can't have nice things.

Thank you.

[Mithrandylan]

What is frumpy?

Does it just refer to dress?

Our dress is generally an extension of our interior life.  An indicator, so to speak.

Frumpy is things such as: no make-up, long uncomfortable dresses, clompy shoes, bland hair.  Essentially, stylistic boredom.  Bleak minimalism.  Who could possibly be spiritually joyful in such outward trappings?  Make-up is a way of beautifying the human face; it's taking the natural creation and just jazzing it up a little bit, making it prettier.  After all, nobody's perfect.

I can think of thousands of monastics that would disagree with you.

Frumpiness (as you describe it)  is only a problem if one does it because they think it's a sin not to do it (scruples, possible Jansenism) or if one insists its the only Catholic way to do it.

Self mortification and denial are Catholic things which we all must do to some degree or another.

[erin is nice]

I can think of thousands of monastics that would disagree with you.

Frumpiness (as you describe it)  is only a problem if one does it because they think it's a sin not to do it (scruples, possible Jansenism) or if one insists its the only Catholic way to do it.

Self mortification and denial are Catholic things which we all must do to some degree or another.

Should we show our self mortification on the outside? Or do our good works in secret?

Anyway, I doubt the frumps are doing it as mortification or self denial. They are doing it for modesty's sake.

[Mono no aware]

I can think of thousands of monastics that would disagree with you.

Obviously, if we're talking about monastics, then we would have to treat that as a separate issue.  They have a special vocation.  The OP seemed specifically geared towards single persons and marrieds.

Frumpiness (as you describe it)  is only a problem if one does it because they think it's a sin not to do it (scruples, possible Jansenism) or if one insists its the only Catholic way to do it.

I was only giving a description of it.  If some women are for whatever reason comfortable or happy wearing long unbecoming smocks, clompy shoes and sporting blemishy skin, pasty lips, and circles under their eyes, then they can plum go all out and have a ball with it.  Maybe it's not a problem for them.  But frumpiness is by no means required, and sane people have to make sure the frumps don't win.  Really, we're supposed to enjoy God's creation, and he gave women faces that benefit from make-up, and he put the dyes to create make-up in the world, and furthermore he gave men the ability to appreciate a glammed-up female face.  There's something for everyone on this scheme, and there's certainly no sin.

[Someone1776]

I can think of thousands of monastics that would disagree with you.

But, we're not monastics. 

Father Ripperger has a sermon where he explains makeup is a vanity; however, one that may not only be permitted, but encouraged under circumstances. Thus, an unmarried woman will wear makeup to help her find a husband. A married woman will wear makeup to please her husband. However, cloistered nuns have no reason  to wear makeup other than for entirely self-centered reasons and therefore it is not appropriate that they wear makeup. 

Similar, people living cloistered religious lives will not dress in a way to impress the outside world as they have no reason to do that, as we do live in the world and if we hope to get by we do need to impress others.

Yes, there is no requirement women wear makeup or or men a responsibility to look nice or the refusal to do so is necessarily sinful, but it does seem like this becomes a problem when it begins affecting their families. Thus, I think there would be a problem with a wife that refuses to address her appearance at all and results with her husband finding her less attractive or a father who decides to dress like Saint Francis who subsequently loses his job because coworkers think he is a nut.

[Archer]

I don't understand why balance and moderation are so hard for folks to agree upon.

It's either "No make-up at all!" or "Any Catholic who ever discusses makeup on moral grounds is a Jansenist."

This is why we can't have nice things.

Thank you.  Let's also add reason and common sense to balance and moderation. 

[Mithrandylan]

Folks,

I am not arguing in favor of this nebulous and subjective term 'frumpiness' being the preferred mode of fashion for Catholics or anyone else.  I've heard the term and wanted to know what it referred to, and was told.  My post was made in the spirit of moderation (not as in forum moderation, but the other meaning), to avoid this thread concluding that someone who doesn't follow the modern trends of dress and fashion is violating some Catholic spirit. 

[LouisIX]

We all have different lots in life and different ways in which we are called to holiness.  As someone who believes very much in monarchy and aristocracy, it would be foolish to say that some people (perhaps many) are not called to spending time and money to look dignified and well put together.

But others forsake these things, not out of some necessity that applies to all Catholics but out of a genuine desire to live the beatitudes.  Those who dress well, wear make-up, have very nice things, etc. may live the beatitudes in a different way.

There's just so much discussion on trad fora about how each poster lives and how doing something different is either sinfully lax or sinfully fundamentalist. 

There's a concerning trend, an ironic one, of espousing a more narrow view of the Christian spiritual life to argue for what a poster sees as a broader one.  Both "softliners" and "hardliners" on a given topic act as if their way is dogmatic when it is not.

[jim111]

I am not declaring a Dogma, I am only tiring to underhand what the church teaches. If you don't like it then don't read the form.
Let me clarify my position. I am not saying that women should never wear makeup. As in my original post it is obviously allowed in marriage, andn to cover up imperfections. If someone is wearing make up and I cant tell, I would consider that covering an imperfection. However the problem I see is when young girls clearly wear a lot of makeup for nothing more then to appeal to sexual desires, according to all I have read this is wrong. I am not saying that women are suppose to be ugly, they ought to be beautiful and wear beautiful clothes. But it seems that makeup as used by the average high school girl is directed and appealing to the sexual appetite of men. I understand that ordered sexual desires are good and necessary. However it is my understanding that until marriage, girls are not to appeal the sexual appetite, as a form of getting a husband.


Here is a were my logic is coming form. The reason we do not let women wear bikinis in public is because it is appealing to the sexual desires of men. When used heavily, makeup does not just cure imperfections it appeals to the sexual appetite of men. I don't understand how these situations are different. Though culture is different, culture also says short shorts are ok, however the church will never approve of this. I don't see how heavily used make up is any different.

Though some in this form have said that they personally don't like make up can anyone say the picture of the girl below without makeup is not more sexually appealing.



Article 2. Whether the adornment of women is devoid of mortal sin?

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.

[LouisIX]

I am not declaring a Dogma, I am only tiring to underhand what the church teaches. If you don't like it then don't read the form.
Let me clarify my position. I am not saying that women should never wear makeup. As in my original post it is obviously allowed in marriage, andn to cover up imperfections. If someone is wearing make up and I cant tell, I would consider that covering an imperfection. However the problem I see is when young girls clearly wear a lot of makeup for nothing more then to appeal to sexual desires, according to all I have read this is wrong. I am not saying that women are suppose to be ugly, they ought to be beautiful and wear beautiful clothes. But it seems that makeup as used by the average high school girl is directed and appealing to the sexual appetite of men. I understand that ordered sexual desires are good and necessary. However it is my understanding that until marriage, girls are not to appeal the sexual appetite, as a form of getting a husband.


Here is a were my logic is coming form. The reason we do not let women wear bikinis in public is because it is appealing to the sexual desires of men. When used heavily, makeup does not just cure imperfections it appeals to the sexual appetite of men. I don't understand how these situations are different. Though culture is different, culture also says short shorts are ok, however the church will never approve of this. I don't see how heavily used make up is any different.

Though some in this form have said that they personally don't like make up can anyone say the picture of the girl below without makeup is not more sexually appealing.



Article 2. Whether the adornment of women is devoid of mortal sin?

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.

This seems simple to me.  If a woman is wearing her make-up in order to arouse men then she is sinning (in intention, not in the act itself).  If she's wearing make-up to look pretty, to hide imperfections, to try and garner attention from potential suitors (if she's in the correct state in life to do so), or to look beautiful for her husband then she is not sinning.

A woman shouldn't call undo attention to herself, but may wear make-up if it's becoming to her and done for the right reasons.  This often means falling within reasonable cultural norms.  Some women may prefer a little more make-up and some may prefer less (for any number of reasons).  Both are fine to apply make-up as they see fit so long as their intentions are good and they don't end up quite obviously diminishing their beauty instead of adding to it (and this is going to be somewhat subjective given that society has an objective but often broad range of what makes a woman beautiful).

This seems like something we should all be able to agree upon.