[GraceCoolidge]

I agree with Aliska's post that the key point would be if the marriage was performed by a priest. If it was, then you have pretty conclusive evidence the annulment was granted. If it wasn't, then there is still a question. I find it difficult to believe a priest would not have been chosen to officiate if Kerry was able to be married Catholic at that time. If there was no priest, then I suspect he did not have an annulment of his prior marriage as of the wedding date. It is possible, however, that the annulment was later granted and his present marriage was convalidated (blessed) by the church, making it a Catholic marriage sort of ex post facto. So while the presence of a priest would be clear evidence of annulment, the absence of one isn't conclusive....

[Aliska]

I agree with Aliska's post that the key point would be if the marriage was performed by a priest. If it was, then you have pretty conclusive evidence the annulment was granted. If it wasn't, then there is still a question. I find it difficult to believe a priest would not have been chosen to officiate if Kerry was able to be married Catholic at that time. If there was no priest, then I suspect he did not have an annulment of his prior marriage as of the wedding date. It is possible, however, that the annulment was later granted and his present marriage was convalidated (blessed) by the church, making it a Catholic marriage sort of ex post facto. So while the presence of a priest would be clear evidence of annulment, the absence of one isn't conclusive....

That's exactly my position. However, it is not beyond the pale that priests could show up in roman collars as invited guests and technically would be witnesses but have no key role in the ceremony. I never heard of one valid catholic wedding where a priest or deacon did not lead the proceedings in an official capacity representing the church.

So the matter is still up for grabs as far as I am concerned. But there's no sense of continuing to hammer away at it because it is really only relevant as a matter of scandal to faithful catholics and not to those outside the church unless as possible further evidence of duplicity or getting around technicalities.

Now for all I know, everything may be perfectly in order, but the fact that there are probably a few quaint little Catholic churches on the island leads me to believe that the tent ceremony may have been to get it on record for public consumption or just because they preferred an outdoor wedding on the bride's own property because it might be more romantic than a church wedding.

As easy as annulments are to get, I would be surprised if there weren't one but sometimes it is a very lengthy process if the applicants were both baptized Christians and how long it took the respondent to respond and if it was resisted by the respondent. The one who files gets the jump on the other party, and can build a case against them without having to reveal any of their own psychological immaturity or whatever. If he cheated on her, he wouldn't necessarily have to include that in the annulment if he was the one who initiated it. I said if. I am not accusing him of cheating on her because I don't know. If she was depressed, a case could be built on that alone as indicating something or other.