Can you remarry if spouse dies or is it moral?

[floresco]

I’m not sure what you see as out of context, Brother. He quite clearly expresses that unmarried widowhood is better than remarriage (which, again, is subsumed under the more general doctrine that celibacy is above marriage), and expresses the same, even more clearly, later in the same chapter:
A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will; only in the Lord. But more blessed shall she be, if she so remain, according to my counsel; and I think that I also have the spirit of God. (1 Cor. 7:39-40)

I think there is some confusion because the question of this thread is whether a person can remarry on the death of a spouse. The teaching that is better not remarry is not the answer to the question that was asked. The answer to that question is yes.

Once it is established that they can marry and it is moral, that is the time to mention that it is better to remain unmarried. That is just the way that the verse you quote did it.

 

[MarkThompson]

I think there is some confusion because the question of this thread is whether a person can remarry on the death of a spouse. The teaching that is better not remarry is not the answer to the question that was asked. The answer to that question is yes.

Once it is established that they can marry and it is moral, that is the time to mention that it is better to remain unmarried. That is just the way that the verse you quote did it.

Yes, well, the original question had been answered two months ago, and I was trying to respond to subsequent discussion. I should have made that clearer to avoid confusing things. In any event, let me add the following paragraph from the Council of Florence (Bull of Union With the Copts, 1442):
It is asserted that some people reject fourth marriages as condemned. Lest sin is attributed where it does not exist, since the apostle says that a wife on her husband’s death is free from his law and free in the Lord to marry whom she wishes, and since no distinction is made between the deaths of the first, second and third husbands, we declare that not only second and third marriages but also fourth and further ones may lawfully be contracted, provided there is no canonical impediment. We say, however, that they would be more commendable if thereafter they abstain from marriage and persevere in chastity because we consider that, just as virginity is to be preferred in praise and merit to widowhood, so chaste widowhood is preferable to marriage.
Mostly, I was surprised to see people on the Traditional Catholicism formula so baffled by Ethel Kennedy’s entirely correct assertion that the Church teaches that it is better to remain chaste in widowhood than to remarry.

 

[johnthebaptist1]

What do you mean have “friends”? Do you mean date women, but don’t get into relationships?

Yes, that is what I.am saying.May you have a wonderful day, GOD BLESS US ALL.for those that follow his way. Amen

 

[floresco]

Mostly, I was surprised to see people on the Traditional Catholicism formula so baffled by Ethel Kennedy’s entirely correct assertion that the Church teaches that it is better to remain chaste in widowhood than to remarry.

As I recall the thread, it did not contain any direct quotes from Ethel Kennedy and we did not see any explicit assertions from her that it is better to remain is chaste widowhood. All we saw was a vague statement that she did not remarry because of her religion. I have the impression that most of us understood that to imply she thought that Catholicism forbids remarriage. I think you can agree that would be a baffling position. Of course, it makes sense as an allusion to the teaching that chaste widowhood is better than remarriage. I appreciate you pointing out this explanation.

 

[TrueLight]

Yes, that is what I.am saying.May you have a wonderful day, GOD BLESS US ALL.for those that follow his way. Amen

Dating without any intention of marriage can lead to sin.

 

[Baelor]

Yes, well, the original question had been answered two months ago, and I was trying to respond to subsequent discussion. I should have made that clearer to avoid confusing things. In any event, let me add the following paragraph from the Council of Florence (Bull of Union With the Copts, 1442):…Mostly, I was surprised to see people on the Traditional Catholicism formula so baffled by Ethel Kennedy’s entirely correct assertion that the Church teaches that it is better to remain chaste in widowhood than to remarry.

“Better” is perhaps too broad a term. Any sense of superiority (which, I agree, exists) in not remarrying would exist prior to the marriage as well, i.e. the fact that the person is a widow(/er) is irrelevant to the decision.

If that was unclear, let me rephrase: chaste virginity (or chastity in the case of the widow(/er) is preferred to marriage, but this has nothing to do with being a widower or not having been married at all. The Roman praise of the unavira, for example, is not espoused by any Catholic teaching that I know.

 

[fpt]

Obviously that is possible and moral. According to the teaching of the catholic church, it is totally moral. Per se, no problem, it is not a sin.

Marriage is a natural institution and natural contract , then is a sacramental institution and sacramental contract — the sacrement— for live on the earth like when God created Adam and Eve, the first couple. With Jesus Christ, there were a restauration of the original situation between wife and husband.

Man (husband) is done for woman (wife); Woman (wife) is done for man (husband)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

In the Latin Church, it is okay. The next marriage is Sacramental.

If you are Eastern Catholic, the view on marriage is different. Marriage is seen as eternal, you can get married again in the church but its viewed more as “economy” and not Sacramental as the first.

I have never heard this and would also like to ask for any sources to such a thing.

I believe this idea would contradict Sacred Scripture which says there is no marriage in heaven.

…til death do us part…
The vows end when one dies.

Exception? Permanent deacon - they make a vow to the church to not re-marry. But, I think that only applies to the guy, not his wife.

In the Byzantine Rite marriage there are no vows during the ceremony. So there is no “till death do us part” statement made.

Any man in Holy Orders who is married (yes there are priests that are married) may not remarry if their wife dies. This is due to the Holy Orders it has nothing to do with the marriage. The wife is free to marry if her husband dies because she is not under Holy Orders.

 

[dconklin]

Ethel Kennedy didn’t remarry and she said it was also becuase her religion

Until rather recently in the history of the Church, people did not have access to the Catechism and other authoritative works to verify what they are told. Back then, the local priest was the expert on all things Catholic. I would not be surprised if priests used the rules (actual and made-up) to assert power.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Until rather recently in the history of the Church, people did not have access to the Catechism and other authoritative works to verify what they are told. Back then, the local priest was the expert on all things Catholic. I would not be surprised if priests used the rules (actual and made-up) to assert power.

Given her and her family’s background, I hardly think Ethel Kennedy grew up subject to the whims and possible misinterpretations of the “local priest.” Can anyone say “Cardinal Cushing?”

 

[RyanBlack]

I have never heard this and would also like to ask for any sources to such a thing.

I believe this idea would contradict Sacred Scripture which says there is no marriage in heaven.

In the Byzantine Rite marriage there are no vows during the ceremony. So there is no “till death do us part” statement made.

Any man in Holy Orders who is married (yes there are priests that are married) may not remarry if their wife dies. This is due to the Holy Orders it has nothing to do with the marriage. The wife is free to marry if her husband dies because she is not under Holy Orders.

ConstatineTG is correct. The traditional Byzantine view of marriage is that it is eternal; so second and third marriages, under certain circumstances, may be permitted, but they are seen as an accommodation to human weakness. Traditionally, such marriages would not involve the rite of crowning, and would be followed by a period in which the couple would be required to abstain from Holy Communion. Fr. John Meyendorff discusses the understanding of the eternal nature of marriage in Byzantine Theology. As to the point that this teaching contradicts Holy Scripture, I suspect that the response would be that when Christ was answering the question about the woman who married multiple brothers, he was describing marriage under the Old Covenant, before it was raised to the dignity of a sacrament (that’s just a guess on my part-I don’t recall ever having had this actual conversation)