The Church even permits third and fourth marriages of this type.  This is not sinful in any way and the couple should be treated as any family.  Personally, I am shocked that traditional Catholics would have any problem with this arrangement at all.  They sound more like Puritans rather than Catholics.

I'd be happy for them. A man wants a wife for more things than lust, someone to help him with children, clean, and take care of the home. A woman, especially one who has stayed at home during her first marriage, is practically incapable of taking care of herself financially. She also needs a father for her children. They can pray together, partake of the sacraments, and grow old together.

How many chapels have a fund for the support of widows and motherless children? If yours does have one, are these people who condemn others contributing to it?

Sorry but in today's world, it makes sense to remarry. There is almost no charity for widows and orphans among Catholics. The organizations that once did charitable works for Catholics are all but gone. Take away a mother, and you may have a father who puts his children in public school or hands them off to non-Catholics to raise. Take away a father, and mother can put her kids in public school and work at McDonalds, and be on state assistance programs her whole life.

Given how much traditional Catholics abhor state welfare, they would still condemn a woman and her children to it, because they don't like a valid second marriage?

I'd have them over and be their friends in a second, if we got along well. No problems. God alone is their judge.

The Summa states that matrimony is meritorious:

For if the motive for the marriage act be a virtue, whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children for the worship of God, it is meritorious.

Second marriages are a sacrament:

Article 1. Whether a second marriage is lawful?

Objection 1. It would seem that a second marriage is unlawful. Because we should judge of things according to truth. Now Chrysostom [Hom. xxxii in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says that "to take a second husband is in truth fornication," which is unlawful. Therefore neither is a second marriage lawful.

Objection 2. Further, whatever is not good is unlawful. Now Ambrose [On 1 Corinthians 7:40 and De Viduis] says that a second marriage is not good. Therefore it is unlawful.

Objection 3. Further, no one should be debarred from being present at such things as are becoming and lawful. Yet priests are debarred from being present at second marriages, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 42). Therefore they are unlawful.

Objection 4. Further, no one incurs a penalty save for sin. Now a person incurs the penalty of irregularity on account of being married twice. Therefore a second marriage is unlawful.

On the contrary, We read of Abraham having contracted a second marriage (Genesis 25:1).

Further, the Apostle says (1 Timothy 5:14): "I will . . . that the younger," namely widows, "should marry, bear children." Therefore second marriages are lawful.

I answer that, The marriage tie lasts only until death (Romans 7:2), wherefore at the death of either spouse the marriage tie ceases: and consequently when one dies the other is not hindered from marrying a second time on account of the previous marriage. Therefore not only second marriages are lawful, but even third and so on.

Reply to Objection 1. Chrysostom is speaking in reference to the cause which is wont at times to incite a person to a second marriage, namely concupiscence which incites also to fornication.

Reply to Objection 2. A second marriage is stated not to be good, not that it is unlawful, but because it lacks the honor of the signification which is in a first marriage, where one husband has one wife, as in the case of Christ and the Church.

Reply to Objection 3. Men who are consecrated to Divine things are debarred not only from unlawful things, but even from things which have any appearance of turpitude; and consequently they are debarred from second marriages, which lack the decorum which was in a first marriage.

Reply to Objection 4. Irregularity is not always incurred on account of a sin, and may be incurred through a defect in a sacrament ["Defectus sacramenti," i.e. defect of signification; Cf. 2, Objection 3]. Hence the argument is not to the point.
Article 2. Whether a second marriage is a sacrament?

Objection 1. It would seem that a second marriage is not a sacrament. For he who repeats a sacrament injures the sacrament. But no sacrament should be done an injury. Therefore if a second marriage were a sacrament, marriage ought nowise to be repeated.

Objection 2. Further, in every sacrament some kind of blessing is given. But no blessing is given in a second marriage, as stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 42). Therefore no sacrament is conferred therein.

Objection 3. Further, signification is essential to a sacrament. But the signification of marriage is not preserved in a second marriage, because there is not a union of only one woman with only one man, as in the case of Christ and the Church. Therefore it is not a sacrament.

Objection 4. Further, one sacrament is not an impediment to receiving another. But a second marriage is an impediment to receiving orders. Therefore it is not a sacrament.

On the contrary, Marital intercourse is excused from sin in a second marriage even as in a first marriage. Now marital intercourse is excused [Cf. 69, 1 by the marriage goods which are fidelity, offspring, and sacrament. Therefore a second marriage is a sacrament.

Further, irregularity is not contracted through a second and non-sacramental union, such as fornication. Yet irregularity is contracted through a second marriage. Therefore it is a sacramental union.

I answer that, Wherever we find the essentials of a sacrament, there is a true sacrament. Wherefore, since in a second marriage we find all the essentials of the sacrament of marriage (namely the due matter--which results from the parties having the conditions prescribed by law--and the due form, which is the expression of the inward consent by words of the present), it is clear that a second marriage is a sacrament even as a first.

Reply to Objection 1. This is true of a sacrament which causes an everlasting effect: for then, if the sacrament be repeated, it is implied that the first was not effective, and thus an injury is done to the first, as is clear in all those sacraments which imprint a character. But those sacraments which have not an everlasting effect can be repeated without injury to the sacrament, as in the case of Penance. And, since the marriage tie ceases with death, no injury is done to the sacrament if a woman marry again after her husband's death.

Reply to Objection 2. Although the second marriage, considered in itself, is a perfect sacrament, yet if we consider it in relation to the first marriage, it is somewhat a defective sacrament, because it has not its full signification, since there is not a union of only one woman with only one man as in the marriage of Christ with the Church. And on account of this defect the blessing is omitted in a second marriage. This, however, refers to the case when it is a second marriage on the part of both man and woman, or on the part of the woman only. For if a virgin marry a man who has had another wife, the marriage is blessed nevertheless. Because the signification is preserved to a certain extent even in relation to the former marriage, since though Christ has but one Church for His spouse, there are many persons espoused to Him in the one Church. But the soul cannot be espoused to another besides Christ, else it commits fornication with the devil. Nor is there a spiritual marriage. For this reason when a woman marries a second time the marriage is not blessed on account of the defect in the sacrament.

Reply to Objection 3. The perfect signification is found in a second marriage considered in itself, not however if it be considered in relation to the previous marriage, and it is thus that it is a defective sacrament.

Reply to Objection 4. A second marriage in so far as there is a defect in the sacrament, but not as a sacrament, is an impediment to the sacrament of Order.

You really need to stay away from the neo-SSPX cult.

It has been said that widows ought to remain widowed, and that to remarry, while tolerated, is nothing more than a sign of weakness and attachment to lust.

I'd hope that it wasn't a priest who said that.  Whoever it was comes off like the worst kind of Protestant busy-body, trying to impute sinful motives to others' innocent behaviour.

Shun the bigots. Befriend the couple.

Saint Thomas More married twice....and look where he ended up.  :dancing:

Heaven?

How should a couple, whose members are in a second marriage, be treated?  To clarify, no one is divorced.  Both the husband and the wife were previously widowed, and they both had young children.  Personally, I treat the couple as I would any another; their first marriages were "till death did they part," and they validly contracted a second one.  Others in my chapel, however, seem to see something wrong with the arrangement.  Some have even said that although the Church permits second marriages of this type, it is still at least venially sinful.

Thoughts?

I think that the people in your chapel who think that it is venially sinful to live out what the Church permits have a screw loose.