From the Council of Szabolcs, in Hungary, A.D. 1092

Chapter I. We command bigamous presbyters and deacons, and husbands of widows or repudiated women, to be separated, and, after penance has been completed, to return to their order. And those who are unwilling to dismiss illicit marriages ought to be degraded according to the institutes of the canon. But we command the separated women to be returned to their parents; and because they were not legitimate, if they wish, let it be lawful for them to be married.

Since the women are said not to be legitimate, it is clear that the discourse is about those who were accepted after orders had been received. Therefore, calling them bigamous, the Fathers are dealing with those presbyters and deacons who entered marriage twice and establish that at least the second marriage after ordination is no marriage; but concerning the first they decree something economically in chapter III. Cf. what we shall say under chapter III.

Chapter II. If any presbyter has associated his own female slave to himself in the place of a wife, let her be sold (the female slave), and let her price be transferred to the bishop.

Chapter III. To presbyters who have led first and legitimate marriages, let indulgence be given for a time on account of the bond of peace and the unity of the Holy Spirit (namely, lest the tranquility of the Church be disturbed), until the paternity of the Apostolic Lord gives counsel to us in this matter.

Either the discourse is about a marriage contracted before orders were received, whose use is indulged until the Roman See, having been consulted, gives an answer; or about a marriage contracted after ordination, in which the Fathers indulgently permit presbyters to remain until the Roman See decrees what is to be done. Since this latter is too abnormal, I judge that the canon must be understood in the former way; especially since the propriety of the words suggests this, and nothing occurs contrary to this interpretation. Indeed, the Fathers call such marriages absolutely, without any signification of doubt, legitimate marriages; but marriages contracted after ordination, even if first marriages, they would not have called legitimate without hesitation, since they themselves also doubted whether the use of marriage was lawful for presbyters, as is clear from this very canon. In the first canon, indeed, the nuptials of a presbyter and deacon are called illegitimate both when they are second and when they are with widows or repudiated women, so that consequently that presbyter who after ordination married for the first time with a virgin rejected by no one would not be subject to the sanction of that canon. For this reason it could seem that this is the case which the Fathers touch in Canon III. Nor is it a wonder that those Fathers were less skilled in ecclesiastical law; nevertheless they define nothing, but await the response of the Holy See. Nonetheless, neither is this interpretation necessary; for in the same way it will be lawful to say that the Fathers speak of one sole marriage entered before ordination and afterward continuing: for this case also is not touched in Canon I.