# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_December 1858_S374
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

374 Excerpts as Contributions to Pastoral Casuistry.

one who married before the end of the tenth month had to sacrifice a
pregnant cow according to the laws of Numa" — in the months, that is,
which bound the outermost time of birth. Valentinian or Theodosius added
two more, and thus intended that a full year be dedicated by the woman to
mourning. Apuleius gives yet another reason, namely that through the
untimeliness of the marriage the manes of the departed husband to be
mourned would be filled with righteous indignation.

In canon law this imperial ordinance has been abolished, and the widow
given permission to marry even within the year of mourning. It states:
Not all are infamous whom the secular laws declare infamous — which we
must confess concerning her who marries within the time of mourning,
since marriages nowadays are governed by the law of heaven and not by the
law of the secular forum, and according to the law of heaven the wife,
after the death of her husband, is free from the law that pertains to the
husband; let her marry whom she will." Urban III, in the Corpus juris
canonici: "Since the apostle says: a wife is, after the death of her
husband, free from the law of her husband; let her marry in the Lord
whom she will; the permission and authority of the apostle thereby
removes her infamy." Innocent III repeats the same.

But this determination of canon law we cannot approve, since it is
contrary to public decency, and results in confusion and uncertainty of
offspring, indeed reinforces the suspicion of a crime. Nor does it have any
basis in 1 Corinthians 7:39, because 1) the freedom to marry arising from
the death of the first husband does not abolish the laws and decency —
otherwise a widow could also marry those who are related to her by
consanguinity. Rather, according to our judgment, we can only do what we
can do in an honorable and just manner. 2) The apostle is not speaking so
much of the time of marrying as of the person whom she might marry, for
he does not say: when she wishes, but: whom she wishes. Now if this very
undetermined freedom to marry whom she wishes must necessarily be so
limited that it does not conflict with the laws concerning the forbidden
degrees of kinship, then this freedom must certainly also be bounded, in
respect of time, according to decency and fair grounds. 3) The apostle
expressly adds: let her marry whom she wishes — only that it be done in
the Lord, a phrase which also includes this, that the new marriage be
entered into in true fear of God and that nothing be undertaken contrary
to the decency pleasing to God and approved by men. But now a marriage
entered into by the widow within the year of mourning proves
frivolousness, impudence, immoderate desire, and the like. 4) The same
apostle commands in Romans 12:1 the Christians that they should be subject
to the authorities when these command what is honorable, which Peter also
repeats in 1 Peter 2:13: but now the ordinance