Baptizing TomKat’s Baby

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes (a.k.a. TomKat, apparently) are having a baby.

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are also both baptized Catholic.

But now Tom is a Scientologist, and Katie seems to be leaning that way.

Katie’s parents are pushing for the baby to be baptized.

Will Church law and pastoral practice permit this?

CANONIST ED PETERS TAKES ON THE ISSUE.

In reading what he says, be careful to note the distinction Ed uses between delaying baptism and denying baptism.

There is a difference there.

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

51 thoughts on “Baptizing TomKat’s Baby”

  1. I think we are missing something all together..TomKat’s baby is a product of mortal sin..Both persons are scientology and have apostated themselves from the Church. They are going to do whatever they want and pretending to apply canon law and guidlines makes no sense until they recognize they are outside the Church. How can we even entertain a thought that this child will have a Catholic upbringing when they publically show forth their affair… Obviously Tom doesnt care about Church teaching since he left Nicole Kidman nor has Katie considered her own upbringing to act like this. The Best thing could be a public announcement of excommunication by their bishop until they repent.
    Mark

  2. Mark-
    If that was the best thing- why hasn’t it happend? Why hasn’t Cardinal Mahoney, presumably, or Bishop Blair, an STD in theology, of Toledo where Katie is stil likely legally domiciled, done that?
    And what exactly is the excommunicatable offense? Have Tom or Katie demonstrably committed some delict? Have they been given canonical due process in some formal trial or administrative process? Have these two Catholics been treated in accord with their rights?
    Mark- if you don’t know the law, please, don’t presume to pontificate on it. If you don’t know what, or how, an excommunication really is, please don’t call for heads to roll.
    No Mark, the best thing isn’t the rash and unreasonable idea you’ve suggested, the best thing, the very best thing, is charitable evangelization and exhortation.
    I hope my opinion doesn’t qualify me for an excommunication!

  3. also, Mark, and not to nitpick, but the child in Katie’s womb is the product of objective grave sin.
    but do not EVER, EVER, EVER presume to determine whether someone committing objective grave sin is committing mortal sin.
    First of all- it’s not possible for you to know when someone is in mortal sin, with the exception of yourself.
    Second of all- well, I think I’ll just stop with the first point before I lose my charity.

  4. Wait..Divorcing your wife then impregnating a woman..NOT your wife and not being married, Isnt mortal sin?..Engaging is public circus adverstising it… Isnt sandal to the Church?. Tom leaves the Church for Scientology?..Kate says she is devout Catholic?…And they violate the commandments?…I dont need to be a Theologian, a Canonical lawyer or even B-16 to see this as gravew mortal sin…How did this child happpen?..immaculate conception?…NO..It was a choice by 2 consenting “Catholics” , who chose mortal sin. Why are we scared to say so?
    Mark

  5. besides..not to nit pick..but the good sisters that taught me my catechism said that willfully violating the 10 commandments was mortal sin! Grave matter, full consent..this sure sound like it is mortal sin. Is someone twisting their arms?…How can you mitigate this so lightly?
    Mark

  6. mark: your anger at the situation is clouding your judgment. read jd again, he is right, and you’re going off half-cocked. we’re spending time reeling you in when we should be focused on this couple and their baby. btw: my canonical observations reflect what MINISTERS should do if they are approached in this case; we can be rather confident that THEY will see canon law as clearly governing their actions. if you calm down and read what is there, you will see that, I’m sure. i like your animation, just keep it pointed in the right direction.
    jd: “jd” is that a pun for “lawyer”?

  7. Mark, you forget the third thing to make a sin mortal. They must have full knowledge of the sin.
    Yes, their situation is grave, and they gave full consent, but we don’t know the rest of it, so we cannot judge their soul… it’s between them and God. 🙂

  8. ed-
    interestingly, I’ve been JD since birth, I’m really James-Daniel, I am studying law, but I’ll never be JD, JD.
    Instead, I’ll be JD, JCL (or maybe JCD if the money doesn’t dry up first). I appreciate the irony!

  9. Mark…I, too, am a “product of mortal sin” as you so graciously put it, however, I entered the Church at age 30, after being raised in an evangelical protestant church. I agree with Ed Peters’ take on it (at his blog) and hope that Ms Holmes’ parents take comfort in knowing that one never knows what a difference prayer and love can make in the lives of their daughter and grandchild. The baptism will hopefully come in due time.

  12. There should be no time wasted in bapizing this or any baby. Baptism now saves us, according to scripture. And with respect, Ed, the grandparents’ desire to baptize and impart some level of the faith to that baby is all that is necessary.
    It would compound the problems, not solve them, to deny this poor child the ordinary means of salvation. Why let a scientologist place a baby’s eternal destiny in doubt? The clear duty is to baptize.
    If the parent’s faith is so vital, you would think that the Bishops would do something to actually ensure the catechesis of the faithful and impart the faith.
    Gee whiz.

  13. “there must be what canon law calls “a founded hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion.” (c. 868).”
    Is not Jesus and His promise sufficient foundation for hope? “And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself.” (John 12:32) In His name the nations will put their hope. Even Katie’s parents apparently have hope. Has Ed Peters has lost hope? Does Ed Peters need signs, proof? “Hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.”
    “unless her grandbaby is suddenly thrust into danger of death (cc. 861, 867)”
    Many say Scientology thrusts people into danger of death. Is it true? Or just more gossip of the tabloids.
    http://www.whyaretheydead.net

  15. 🙂 these are funny, but i never try to argue people who are happy with their own definitions of reality out of their positions. have a nice weekend, all.

  17. First of all- it’s not possible for you to know when someone is in mortal sin, with the exception of yourself.
    “If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.”
    Must be at least possible to make an educated guess, if you can refrain from praying from someone because his sin is mortal.

  18. Scientology claims that it is NOT a religion.
    According to Scientology, a person can be a Scientologist AND a Catholic at the same time.

  19. Jim, according to Scientology, there are aliens who control our minds and all sorts of other fun stuff. Why, exactly, should we care what this cult says about itself?

  20. Personally, I agree that a man and woman should be married as well, before having children. But time has changed and people do what they want. Since Kate’s catholic, their baby boy probably will get baptized. Of course, Tom will brainwash her into doing it in the means of Scientology. In the beginning of Tomkat, she should’ve turned Tom’s proposal down. I mean, you never accept a marriage proposal from a person you bearly even know. She’s throwing her life away cause of his image, she don’t know that man very well. Now the broad’s pregnant and being controlled each and every way possible, serve her dumbass right. Any person that believe humans possess the souls of aliens, should’nt be tooken seriously. The red flags were going up in the beginning, but she was too busy money and image grabbing to notice it. No one cared about this girl, until she got with this moron and threw all of her dreams and beliefs right down the drain for him. Now she’s sitting in the audience looking hypnotized and confused, while Tom jump on couches and announce their personal life to the world. The only people that I feel sorry for, is her family and her unborn child. She seemed to be strong-minded in the beginning, I seriously believe he brainwashed, hynoptized and fucked the shit out of her, to get her on his side. Not to mention signed a contract and promised her humongous amounts of money, to carry his child. Seems like she’s starting to get the whole picture, cause her smile’s starting to look forced now. She should’ve listened, now she’s connected to his crazy-ass forever. See what happens when you’re obssessed with a psycho celebrity? Brainwashed and pregnant, a poster child like Katie Holmes. Thank you all for your honest opinions and let’s watch Tomkat,Splat!

  22. Jim, according to Scientology, there are aliens who control our minds and all sorts of other fun stuff.
    Christianity has demons, dragons, hell and angel wars.

  27. Oy szsxrd zr yjsy yjr qrpqar gtpz Uihhpyj pmau drmf yjrot trystfd yp rstyj.
    The above is easily translatable if you have the RIGHT mind.

  30. Jr od epmfrtomh ejsy oy dsud smf oy od ftobomh joz noyd–svyisaau, yjsy od zptr pg s ysq-om qoyy yjsm s ftobe.

  32. The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

  33. “…to discover the Church you have to set out by yourself…. Discovering the Church is apt to be a slow procedure but it can only take place if you have a free mind and no vested interest in disbelief.”

  34. They exact same thing is said about discovering Scientology: “The proselyte must set up a separate category of thought, suspending disbelief, maintaining politeness, granting benefit of the doubt, operating in a part of his mind as if these things were true.”

  37. what a load of judgemental drivel! He might be a crazy scientologist, but all this bollocks about saving the tomkat kittens’ soul is complete tosh! People aren’t bad if they don’t believe in God, people aren’t bad if they don’t belong to your church or any other for that matter.

  38. It always suprises me that people who “don’t believe” in God care so much that we do.
    Humanist, whether you believe it or not Our Lord died for your redemption.
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J
    If there were no God, there would be no Atheists. G.K. Chesterton

  39. Inocencio, you have made an interesting assumption. I did not state that I don’t believe in God (although you must be aware that nobody is obliged to share the same beliefs that you do). What I care about is being tolerant and respectful of the beliefs (religious or otherwise) of others. Being a christian does not automatically make someone superior, ‘right’ or a decent human being. God is not the issue, its the so-called followers.

  40. “He might be a crazy Scientologist”
    “all this bollocks about saving tomkat kitten’s soul is complete tosh”
    “People aren’t bad if they don’t believe in God”
    “People aren’t bad if they don’t belong to your church or any other for that matter”
    What a load of judgmental drivel! Try being tolerant and respectful of the beliefs of others.

  41. Humanist,
    Being intolerant of sin is a virtue.
    Since your comments were judgmental and not respectful of our beliefs does that make you a hypocrite humanist who believes in God?
    “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” G.K. Chesterton
    Take care and God bless,
    Inocencio
    J+M+J

  42. All of you people and your comments are hypocritical…Yes, I am a Catholic, yet didn’t become one until I was an adult. The person who brought me into the church is also a hypocrite…now only goes to church on christmas and easter.All I can say to this person is the same:you brought me here and you don’t?Passing judgement is a sin. If all of you faith seekers want to chat about your faith, go to your bible to the parable-(a story that Jesus told…)when a woman was going to be stoned for committing adultry and Jesus asked of the people: “who of you are without sin, cast the first stone….”….and also remember John3:16- God so loved the world, he sent his only son to our world for our sins. Our day comes when we are judged before God…Even those who beleive there isn’t a heaven and hell.

  43. “Passing judgement is a sin.” Then why did Jesus command us to judge people’s fruits, the things they say and do?

  44. You can judge a the validity of a spirit or “prophet” by the fruits born. You can not say “such and such just commited a mortal sin.” You know what the outward act or word was, and can judge that, but you do not know the secrets of the human heart, and therefore you do not know if the person is culpable. So you can judge the fruits and the “spirit” but you can not judge the person.

  46. For your own life, ok. But that is not the attitude Jesus took when it came to judging others.

  50. The eponymous John Doe must be a $cientologist, brave enough to post a comment cowardly enough to not leave a real name.

Comments are closed.