So, one of my nephews (non-baptized) married a baptized Catholic woman (I'm assuming this since I believe her mother was brought up Catholic).  This woman does not practice the Catholic Faith, does not attend church, etc.  The wedding ceremony did not have a priest. 

Even if this couple married with a priest, this would have been a NO priest who would not have really been a priest.  She certainly would not have sought out a certain traditional Catholic priest.

Valid or not?  It sounds like based on the canons, it's invalid. Of course, my head is spinning from this topic, so who knows? 

Given the crisis and the question of NO priests, I'm not sure that it should be called invalid simply because I do not believe that the canons could have been properly followed.

Who knows whether valid or not. I would say as Trent said - if both were free to marry, then valid until declared invalid....which may or may not be correct in this instance. We know this case is a diriment impediment, but the first course the Church would pursue would be to dispense with the impediment in order to save the marriage if at all possible, safeguarding the sanctity of the sacrament to avoid scandal.

In this case the Petrine Privilege might be invoked, but even then, the baptized woman has no religion so there's not much chance of that happening. Even so, normally doesn't the Church need to be convinced that the woman exhausted all efforts to convert the infidel before declaring it null?

What a mess.