Thank you for the reply, Mr. Hobson.

Well, if he never got an annulment, I think the Church would see him as still married to Wife No. 1.  Agree?  

While he may subjectively be at fault for the state of Marriage No. 1, it is difficult for me to see this as an instance of manifest perseverance in grave sin, in the sense that 1) the "manifest" element is not present in the manner that it is in the case of those who are remarried, and 2) not sure one could say the "perseverance" element is present either, at least from the outside.

If the mere fact of a divorce is cause for Can. 915 to be applied, it seems to me that would be a much more stringent standard than what is being proposed by AL, no?  Is anyone advocating such a position?