From the Council of Meaux and Paris, A.D. 845-46

Canon LXIV. Abductors of virgins and widows, who afterward also, with the will of the parents, as if betrothing them under the name of dowry, have led them into marriage, are to be subjected to public penance; and after public penance has been completed, as the Bishop shall have foreseen, lest they fall into worse things, coming together again, let them take care henceforth to be devoted to alms and to whatever other works of religious and salvific conversation, until by consent they are able to abstain from the conjugal work. But sons from a blameworthy conjunction of this sort, procreated even less laudably before marriage, shall in no way be promoted to ecclesiastical dignity; nor shall those generated from such a marriage be applied to ecclesiastical orders, unless perhaps either the greatest utility or necessity of the Church demands them, or an evident prerogative of merits commends them.

Canon LXV. But those who have not yet taken into marriage, with the will of the parents, under the aforesaid name of betrothal or dowry, those whom they had abducted, when this constitution has been promulgated into the ears of all (those, namely, who did that before this constitution was known; see the following canon), are to be separated from their conjunction and subjected to public penance; but the abducted women are to be restored legally to their parents. But after public penance has been completed, if age and incontinence have demanded it, let them be associated in a legitimate marriage pleasing to both parties. For in these things we do not constitute a rule, but, to use the words of great Leo, we judge what is more tolerable. But if one of the married persons has died, the one who did public penance and has survived shall not presume to repeat marriage, unless perhaps the bishop shall have foreseen that some indulgence should be conceded, so that he can remove a graver offense.

Canon LXVI. But whoever hereafter (from notice of this constitution) has presumed to abduct virgins or widows, according to the synodal definition of blessed Gregory, let they themselves and their accomplices be anathematized, and let the abductors remain perpetually without hope of marriage.

Justinian, Code, Book IX, Title XII, prohibited that a marriage should ever stand between the abductor and the abducted woman, whether she had been betrothed before the abduction or otherwise, with the faculty denied to the abducted virgin or widow of demanding her own abductor as husband for herself. The Church did not approve this law under this universality. Cf. Canon XI of Gregory II in the Roman Council, above, which is not well cited by these Fathers; and the canon of Lucius III, Cum causam, De raptoribus, which agrees with Gregory; and Innocent III, canon Accedens, in the same place; then the decree of the Synod of Trent, Session XXIV, chapter VI. These Fathers seem to have wished to walk in a certain middle way.

Canon LXVIII. Concerning those who abduct the betrothed women of others, or accept them with the consent of the parents, let the ancient and synodal sentence be observed (cf. Canon XI of the Council of Ancyra). And even if perhaps such an outcome is known to be found in the Church, that, for the competence of salvation and religion, the Pontiffs ought to treat some matter more humanely ... by no means, so that we may descend to the greatest indulgence, shall the acceptor of another's betrothed woman pass without public penance, and let him legally pay a fine to the betrothed man.

Canon LXIX. He who, while the husband is living, is accused of having adulterated that man's spouse, and, when he has died soon afterward, is known to have taken the same woman, is in every way to be subjected to public penance. Concerning him also, after the aforesaid penance (the preceding canon), if it is expedient, the rule will be observed (namely, that he may be able to accept her as spouse), unless perhaps the same man or the woman is noted to have killed the man who had died, or kinship or any other criminal action impedes. But if this has been proved, let them remain perpetually without any hope of marriage, with penance.

You have a diriment impediment of crime. A marriage of this sort, even when killing had not intervened, Justinian had already absolutely proscribed and had commanded to be null, Novel 134, chapters 10 and 12. The Fathers do not take account of the reason of this law, who absolutely forbid it only when the killing of the man has also followed. Cf. Canon XL of the Council of Tribur below. Notice that Peter Damian (after Burchard, in the Decree, Book VII, chapter 14), in his little work On the Degrees of Kinship, chapter 4, attributes the following canon to the Council of Meaux, saying: "This Council of Meaux has it: Concerning the affinity of blood, it pleased us that through the degrees of cognation it be observed up to the seventh generation" (the editors wrongly put the end of the canon here). "For also the inheritance of things by legal definitions is sanctioned, to extend the succession of heirs indeed to the seventh degree; for they would not succeed unless it were owed to them from the propagation of cognation." Since in the Collections of Councils there exists no other Synod of Meaux which is said to have established canons besides this one, you would believe that this canon must be adjudged to this one. But the codices do not report it, and Peter was probably deceived by a false inscription; nevertheless the whole canon is found in no other Synod that we know. This canon is ascribed by Gratian, causa XXXV, q. 2, c. 1, to Pope Gregory in the Council of Meaux. Cf. what we shall say under the decree of the Roman Council of Alexander II.