Objection 1: Again, it seems that weddings are not forbidden during certain periods. For matrimony is a sacrament. But in those times the celebration of the other sacraments is not forbidden. Therefore, neither should the celebration of matrimony.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, the requesting of the debt is more unfitting for holy days than wedding celebrations. But in those days the marital debt can be requested. Therefore, so can weddings be celebrated.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, marriages which happen against the statutes of the Church should be dissolved. But they are not dissolved if the wedding happens during such periods. Therefore, neither should they be prohibited by the statutes of the Church.

On the contrary, There is what Ecclesiastes 3:5 says*: a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces*.

I answer that, When new brides are given to their husbands, the souls of the spouses are more greatly occupied by the concern for carnal things in this very newness, and therefore in weddings many signs of wild rejoicing are wont to be shown; and because of this, in those times in which men should particularly elevate themselves to spiritual things, it is prohibited for weddings to be celebrated. Now this is from Advent until Epiphany because of the reception of communion, which, according to the ancient canons, is usually to be made appropriately during the period of the Nativity; and from Septuagesima until the octave of Easter, because of the Easter communion; and from three days before the Ascension until the octave of Pentecost, because of preparation for consuming communion at that time. (The Synod of Agde in 506 stipulated that the faithful were to receive communion three times a year: at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. See Ian Christopher Levy, “The Eucharist and Canon Law in the High Middle Ages,” in A Companion to the Eucharist in the Middle Ages, ed. Ian Levy et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 399–445, at 407.)

Reply Obj. 1: The celebration of matrimony has something of worldly and carnal rejoicing joined to it, which is not in the other sacraments. Therefore, it is not similar.

Reply Obj. 2: Such great distraction of souls does not occur in the rendering or requesting of the debt as in the celebration of a wedding, and therefore it is not similar.

Reply Obj. 3: Since time is not of the essence of matrimony, if it is contracted at an improper time, nevertheless it is a valid sacrament; nor are the contractants separated simply, but for a time, that they may do penance for having transgressed the statutes of the Church; and in this way what the Master says is to be understood (Sentences IV, Dist. 33).