[m4629]

So it is possible that even a priest not be there and there doesn't have to be a mass. I did not know that. The adult children would no doubt qualify as witnesses.

While it is Possible that was a valid catholic wedding, the most telling point would be whether Kerry had gotten dispensation from the bishop, IN ADVANCE. Otherwise, the situation would not have been any different than a Vegas deal.

[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....