Make up sinful? St. Bridget

[HoosierHobbit]

From the Revelations and Prophecies of St. Bridget: “Eleventh, she should be content with the colors and beauty by which God has adorned her face; for extraneous color is very displeasing to God”.

“Sixth, she is to put down the shameful custom of women involving tight clothing, display of the breasts, unguents, and many other vanities; for these are things entirely hateful to God” (unguents would have been used as a cosmetic of some sort).

[“She” refers to the Queen of Cyprus].

“The first of the two sins is that the faces of rational human creatures are being painted with the various colors with which insensible images and statues of idols are colored so that to others, these faces may seem more beautiful than I made them.”

From: St. Bridget (Birgitta) of Sweden - Prophecies and Revelations

I know this is a private relations, but since cosmetics are condemned several times, I have a hard time believing St. Bridget would have misinterpreted thing. Is make up sinful even if used tastefully?

 

[midori]

Two different queens are being specifically advised. You have the Queen of Cyprus–

Concerning the queen of Cyprus. The Son speaks: ”Advise the queen not to
return to her native land for this is not to her advantage. But let her stay in the place in which she has been set, serving God with all her heart. Second, she is not to marry, taking a second husband, for it is more acceptable to God to weep for the things that have been done and, by penance, to make up for time that has been uselessly spent. Third, she should guide the people of her kingdom toward mutual concord and charity; and she should labor that justice and good morals be laudably maintained and that the community not be weighed down with unusual burdens. Fourth, for God’s sake, she should forget the evils that were committed against her husband and not burn for revenge.

For I am the Judge, and I shall judge for her. Fifth, she should nurture her son with divine charity and appoint as his councilors men who are just and not covetous, and as members of his household, men who are modest, composed, and wise, from whom he may learn to fear God, to rule justly, to sympathize with the unfortunate, to flee from flatterers and sycophants like poison, and to seek the advice of just men, even if they are poor, lowly, or despised. Sixth, she is to put down the shameful custom of women involving tight clothing, display of the breasts, unguents, and many other vanities; for these are things entirely hateful to God.

Seventh, she should have a confessor who, having left the world, loves souls more than gifts and who neither glosses over sins nor fears to reprove them. And, in those things that pertain to the salvation of the soul, she is to obey him just as she obeys God. Eighth, she should seek out and be attentive to the lives of holy queens and saintly women; and she is to labor for the increase of God’s honor. Ninth, she should be reasonable in her gifts, avoiding both debts and the praises of men, for it is more acceptable to God to give little or even nothing than to contract debts and to defraud one’s neighbor.”

 

[HoosierHobbit]

for extraneous color is very displeasing to God”

I know He’s talking about a specific soul, but He uses the language "for extraneous color is very displeasing to God”. This seems to apply to all souls.

 

[midori]

And then you have the Queen of Naples–

Christ speaks: ”Write to her that she should make a clean confession of all that
she had done from her youth and that she should have a firm purpose of amendment according to the advice of her confessor. Second, she should diligently recall the manner and the quality of her life during her marriage and during her rule; for she is going to render an account of everything to me. Third, she must have the intention of paying her debts and of restoring that which she knows was wrongly acquired. For the soul is in peril as long as such things are kept; and it does no good to give lavish gifts if debts go unpaid. Fourth, she is not to burden the community with her new inventions, but instead should lighten the burdens which have grown customary. For God will hear the sigh and the crying of those in misery.

Fifth, she must have councilors who are just and not covetous; and she must
entrust her judgments to such men as love truth and do not fawn upon factions or seek to grow rich but know how to be content with what is necessary. Sixth, every day, at fixed times, she should remember God’s wounds and his passion, for by this means the love of God is renewed in the heart. Seventh, at fixed times she should collect the poor, wash their feet, and refresh them. She should love all her subjects with sincere charity, bringing all those at strife to accord and consoling those who are unjustly offended. Eighth, she should grant her gifts with discretion and according to her means, not oppressing some while making others rich, but wisely relieving some without burdening anyone.

Ninth, she is not to be more attentive to the money of criminals than to justice;
but setting aside all greed, she is to weigh the quality of the crimes and show more compassion where she sees greater humility. Tenth, during her lifetime, she is to apply all her diligence to ensure that her kingdom can be in a calm state after her death, for I predict to her that henceforth she will not have offspring from her womb. Eleventh, she should be content with the colors and beauty by which God has adorned her face; for extraneous color is very displeasing to God. Twelfth, she is to acquire greater humility and contrition for her sins because, in my eyes, she is a predator of many souls, a prodigal squanderer of my goods, and a rod of tribulation to my friends. Thirteenth, she must have continual fear in her heart because in all the time she has had, she has led the life of a lascivious woman rather than that of a queen.

 

[midori]

Fourteenth, let her put aside worldly customs and those women who flatter
her. The short time that she has left, she should spend in honoring me, for up to now she has treated me as if I were a human being without recollection of her sins. Let her now fear and live in such a way that she may not feel my judgment. Otherwise, if she does not listen to me, I will judge her not as a queen but as an ungrateful apostate; and I will scourge her from head to heel; and she will be a disgrace before me and my angels and my saints.”

Item, a revelation. Christ speaks: ”Write those things with fewer and gentler
words, just as the Holy Spirit will inflame you, and send them through my bishop to the queen.”

 

[Tis_Bearself]

This is a private revelation. As such, it is not official Church teaching.
If makeup is being used in a vain or immodest way, or is otherwise leading someone into sin, then it’s sinful.
If you personally think makeup is leading you into sin, don’t wear it.
In this modern era, I never felt like I was sinning by wearing makeup appropriate to the occasion, which varies depending on whether the occasion was church, the disco, a stage play I was acting in, or Halloween and I was in costume.
In some other cultures, makeup was associated with prostitutes, loose women, or pagans.

 

[Psychae]

Private revelation! Don’t worry about it. (So as to not get scrupulous )

 

[midori]

So-- look at it in its wider context. It’s full of good advice. Some of it is definitely tailored to the individual— ie, the Queen of Cyprus shouldn’t go home after the death of her husband, but it might be preferable for another widow to relocate back to her family and her roots. The Queen of Cyprus shouldn’t remarry after the death of her husband, but for someone else, it may be the difference between life and death. So the ideal may be, after having had a husband, and having children, that you spend your new state focusing on your interior life, just like Paul’s ideal was the single, celibate life— but if you follow Paul’s ideal, humanity ceases within a generation or two.

Regarding the Queen of Naples, remember we’re talking about the royal court system. So the Queen sets the tone for all the nobility to follow. So God is giving her the opportunity to not just limit her own personal vanity, but also influence hundreds of other ladies around her by cultivating modesty and discouraging the obsession with keeping-up-appearances that you get in the royal courts, where everyone’s trying to outdo everyone else in opulence, and completely ignoring the temporal and spiritual cost of that kind of competitiveness. So imagine that it was Beyonce/Lady Gaga/Christina Aguilera/Miley Cyrus/Shakira/whoever that was promoting that kind of image/values-- it goes beyond benefiting just the individual, but benefiting everyone who’s influenced by that person.

So-- for you. If you’re being vain and immodest, walk it back. But don’t feel bad that you live in a culture that encourages having clean, nice-smelling hair and that invented Chapstick.

 

[misstherese]

since its private revelation, we should just throw it out? what an odd thought. The Church has not spoken on this.

There’s a reason it exists and is accessible to everyone. God wanted it so.

St. Augustine says, “To dye oneself with paints in order to have a rosier or a paler complexion is a lying counterfeit.”

One thing I want to say here is that the social customs, no matter how prevalent, do not usurp the moral law. And while I will not list them here, there are a number of common social customs that are clearly in violation of the moral law. That being said, it is possible for social customs to be wrong.

Now we come to Question 169, Article 2, Objection 2 (links and text from the source linked above at newadvent.org): “Cyprian says (De Habit. Virg.): “I hold that not only virgins and widows, but also wives and all women without exception, should be admonished that nowise should they deface God’s work and fabric, the clay that He has fashioned, with the aid of yellow pigments, black powders or rouge, or by applying any dye that alters the natural features.” And afterwards he adds: “They lay hands on God, when they strive to reform what He has formed. This is an assault on the Divine handiwork, a distortion of the truth. Thou shalt not be able to see God, having no longer the eyes that God made, but those the devil has unmade; with him shalt thou burn on whose account thou art bedecked.” But this is not due except to mortal sin. Therefore the adornment of women is not devoid of mortal sin.”

St. Thomas responds to the objection with this: " 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.”"

This comes from the article here: Living With Lady Philosophy: On the Morality of Wearing Makeup

 

[Tis_Bearself]

since its private revelation, we should just throw it out? what an odd thought. The Church has not spoken on this.

The poster didn’t say “just throw it out”, the poster said that one should not let oneself be guided by private revelation and not by the Church.

If the Church has not spoken on makeup, then there’s a reason. Perhaps the Church doesn’t feel it is necessary.

The poster’s point about not being guided by private revelations is a good one, given that there are people all over this board who obsess about what was said during some apparition or to some Saint - and this often includes unapproved apparitions. People should be following the official teachings of the Church in 2018, not something that was purportedly revealed to a saint 1500 years ago.

The Church has spoken out on immodesty, vanity, and seeking to draw a lot of attention to yourself, so if you’re using makeup for any of those reasons, then your intention is a sin, not the mere fact that you put on some makeup. Different people have different reasons for wearing makeup. When I have worn it, it was largely because I thought it was fun. I didn’t kid myself that I was fooling anyone about my looks as the vast majority of people who saw me in it also saw me without any on.

 

[misstherese]

it seems when private revelation is brought up, even if it’s approved, (which is the only allowed private revelation on here) it’s dismissed outright as “just private revelation” as though it’s unimportant or that we should not take a closer look into it.

it’s also commonly misunderstood that bringing up private revelation is an attempt to replace official church teaching, which is not true at all. There is no official Church teaching on the use of makeup. There are teachings on vanity, but not much on makeup. That’s why it’s important to look at the purpose of makeup and decide whether its purpose is good.

Makeup, in the context I’m thinking of, is most often used to enhance or exaggerate one’s features. It’s purpose is vanity. But, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, it’s acceptable to wear it if it is used to cover up a a disfigurement.

 

[misstherese]

Thats your opinion and thats fine. To be honest, I would say covering up acne is fine or other skin conditions because I used to have acne and often did that. Beyond that, that’s personal choice and i’d say if you think it is making you vain then don’t wear it.

 

[Spyridon]

just private revelation” as though it’s unimportant or

It kind of is, in a way.

Private revelation is NOT to be used to base doctrines of faith or morals off of.

It is to be used to increase personal piety and devotion.

So with respect to a moral question like this, yes, private revelation is utterly unimportant and has zero weight on the question.

 

[misstherese]

is Divine Mercy unimportant? Fatima? Brown scapular, miraculous medal, Lourdes, etc.? We know they do not form the basis of the faith, but they can certainly add to one’s faith.

again, the Church has not spoken on the use of makeup. That’s why it’s mention in a private revelation is interesting and should be discussed. I think the real question here is, “What is the purpose of wearing makeup? Why are you about to put that on your face?”

Same goes for other adornments. It’s a question of vanity.

 

[Spyridon]

Divine Mercy unimportant? Fatima? Brown scapular, miraculous medal, Lourdes, etc

With regards to doctrinal formation of faith and morals? Yes.

With regards to popular formation of piety and devotion? No.

If you want to forego use of makeup because of private revelation that’s fine.

If you want to use private revelation to condemn the use of makeup in general, that’s not fine.

 

[misstherese]

This is something I already pretty much said.

With regards to the topic, private revelation is not the deciding factor in this but the statement that provides a question to be answered. That’s when we start to look into official teachings.

We know that vanity is a sin. The question is, “is makeup sinful?”

My answer would be, not inherently, But it certainly can be, and in most cases I see today, it is.

 

[Spyridon]

The question is, “is makeup sinful?”

That’s already been answered.

Makeup or use of makeup to be more precise, in and of itself is not sinful.

The disposition behind the use of makeup as well as the type of makeup are what determine whether it’s use is sinful or not.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

is Divine Mercy unimportant? Fatima? Brown scapular, miraculous medal, Lourdes, etc.? We know they do not form the basis of the faith, but they can certainly add to one’s faith.

All of these devotions you mention have been generally endorsed by the Church magisterium. I know that St. Bridget’s prayers, which she said were revealed to her by Jesus and which I say every day, were also endorsed by a past Pope. I do not believe her revelations about things like makeup were put on the same level as the prayers, and there are also a bunch of “promises” allegedly attached to her prayers which the Church has outright disavowed.

Some statement that St. Bridget made to some queen about makeup is not on the same level as Pope JPII saying that Our Lady of Fatima saved him from the assassin, or promoting the Divine Mercy devotion.

The problem with private revelations is that there are quite simply a lot of them, and many people on this forum are not experienced Catholics who can sort through all of these different statements, but instead are trying to figure out what Catholics generally believe and what they themselves might have to believe in order to be Catholic.

Putting St. Bridget or even Fatima revelations up there next to the deposit of faith muddies the waters of what we are required to believe in order to be members in good standing of the Church.