True, but you’re using terms that aren’t terribly helpful in this discussion.
(1) Validity, not sacramentality, is what is at issue when it comes to converting. If it had been the case that she had been married to a non-baptized person, the lack of a sacramental marriage would not be a barrier to full communion. Bringing in sacramentality here is just liable to conflate two separate issues, especially for people wondering about the effect of their marriage on their conversion.
(2) Convalidation/radical sanation were listed as options if there was found to be a defect in the marriage, provided there was no standing impediment. My impression is that there is also some provision for cases where the church is simply unsure if a valid marriage exists or not and the couple desires to be married. I’ll look into that, though.
The Church presumes marriages to be valid, until proven invalid. The Church is not unsure of the matter, but sometimes the participants are. That is what Tribunals sort out.
I did not bring up the matter of sacramentality; some other poster did (who got it wrong). And the language was flying around, so to speak, because both issues had been put on the table.
I tend to be blunt, and if I offended, I apologize. But using terms correctly helps all to understand (and should be particularly important to someone who is hoping to convert) what the Church may or may not require. People come into the Church often with trepidation because of what they have heard, and this thread is a good example of people of very good will saying the Church holds thus and so, when actually it holds something else. The OP should be given correct information.
I understand that marriage is an area where people may not understand all of the aspects. The OP set out some information; none of the information called for an explanation of either convalidation (which applies to a Catholic marrying outside the Church without a dispensation) or radical sanation (likewise, one of the parties now wanting to participate) as there was no information that either party was baptized Catholic. Why drag in information that has nothing to do with the circumstances? It simply confuses the hearer more in an area that can be very confusing to a Catholic, let alone a non-Catholic.
It helps particularly with those seeking to enter the Church, to answer the question they ask and not answer questions they don’t ask. There are extremely good reasons we have the rules we have, but for someone trying to start the process, being faced with all sorts of information that is not necessarily appropriate can throw them completely off track.
If there are further complication with her marriage (and from what she posted, none are given), those need to be answered during the RCIA process, not in this forum.
She said that they were both baptized. She did not say that he had been baptized Catholic, and while that is always possible, it would seem to me likely she would have said it.
Therefore the presumption should be they were both baptized other than Catholic.
Therefore she has a valid marriage presumptively by The Church, unless and until other facts are given; but she did not ask any question that would lead that direction nor give any information that would so lead.
And if it was a valid marriage between to non-Catholic baptized individuals, it was sacramental. Other posts notwithstanding.
We all want to help, and I presume no ill will in any way, shape or form. But there is a time and a place for certain questions to come up, and I submit that in this forum, unless the OP raises the question either directly or by way of facts given, that we not be wandering down paths that can all too easily work to stop someone from starting the process of joining the Church.
