The NC Register portal, mouthpiece of the conciliar sect’s “Catholic News Agency,” reports on a California couple suing their surrogate mother for $100,000 because she refused to abort their child diagnosed with a treatable heart defect, revealing the inherent demonic logic of the surrogacy industry where children are manufactured products subject to quality control and disposal. The article, while quoting neo-church “ethicists” who mildly criticize the practice, fundamentally fails to condemn surrogacy as the grave intrinsic evil it is—malum in se—instead framing it as a contractual dispute, thereby exposing the complete theological bankruptcy of the post-conciliar establishment.
The Diabolical Contract: Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio
The factual matrix is a textbook illustration of the reduction of human procreation to a commercial transaction governed by the law of the jungle. Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed commissioned a child through a surrogate, McKenna West, embedding in their contract a “selective reduction” clause—a euphemism for contractual infanticide—demanding the death of the child if “fetal abnormalities” were detected. When the diagnosis of hypoplastic left heart syndrome arrived, the “parents” invoked the clause. West, a cardiac nurse, knew the condition was treatable with high success rates; she fled to Texas, a jurisdiction still retaining vestiges of legal protection for the unborn, to give birth. The child, Gabriel, survives post-surgery. The “parents” now sue for breach of contract, demanding $100,000 in damages because the surrogate refused to kill their son.
This is the logical terminus of the contraceptive mentality condemned by Pius XI in Casti Connubii (1930): “Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” Surrogacy compounds this evil by severing the inseparable connection (indissolubile nexus) between the unitive and procreative meanings of the conjugal act, a doctrine defined infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium and reiterated in Humanae Vitae (1968)—the last authentic encyclical before the sede vacante. The child becomes a res, a commodity; the mother, a vessel; the father, a sperm donor; the contract, a warranty. The lawsuit proves the animus of the enterprise: the “parents” preferred a dead “perfect” child to a living “imperfect” one. Quod ab initio vitiosum est, non potest tractu temporis convalescere (What is vicious from the beginning cannot become valid by lapse of time).
Linguistic Engineering: The Newspeak of the Culture of Death
The article’s language—uncritically reproduced from the secular press and adopted by the neo-church’s “news” agency—is a semantic minefield designed to anesthetize the moral sense. The surrogate is termed a “gestational carrier”; the child, a “fetus” or “baby” only when convenient; the abortion clause, a “provision for fetal abnormalities”; the refusal to kill, a “breach of contract”; the lawsuit, a “dispute.” The attorney for the “parents,” Lee Budner, declares his clients “devastated” that the baby’s birth has been “transformed into political theater,” while simultaneously suing the woman who saved their son’s life for not killing him. This is mentiri est contra naturam loqui (to lie is to speak against nature). The “parents” claim to “place their baby’s health and well-being first”—a blasphemous inversion of reality—while their legal action seeks to punish the only person who acted to preserve that life. The neo-church’s “ethicist,” Joe Zalot, calls it a “textbook example of what is wrong with surrogacy,” as if there were a “right” way to rent a womb and order a child. This is the hermeneutic of continuity applied to evil: managing the atrocity rather than anathematizing it.
Theological Anathema: Surrogacy as Simulacrum of Creation
From the perspective of integral Catholic theology, surrogacy is a triple violation of the natural and divine law:
- Violation of the child’s right to be conceived, gestated, and born within the sacramental bond of its parents. Pius XII, Allocution to Midwives (1951): “The child has the right to be the fruit of the conjugal act of its parents… This right is inalienable.” The child is not an object of contract (emptio venditio) but a donum Dei.
- Violation of the exclusivity of marriage. The conjugal act is the proprium of the spouses; introducing a third party into procreation constitutes adulterium spirituale and carnale. The 1917 Code, Canon 1013: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring.” Surrogacy makes a mockery of this end.
- Reduction of the woman to an incubator. The surrogate’s body is rented; her maternal bond is contractually severed. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 154, a. 2: “The offspring is naturally something of the father and mother… hence the child is bound to the parents by a natural bond.” The contract attempts to dissolve this vinculum naturae by positive law—lex humana non potest dissolvere vinculum naturale.
The article quotes Irene Alexander of the “University of Dallas” (a neo-church institution) calling surrogacy a “dissociation of all aspects of human sexuality.” True. But she stops there. She does not declare it intrinsice malum, does not call for its criminalization, does not invoke the poena latae sententiae for formal cooperation. Why? Because the neo-church has capitulated to the secular order, accepting the fait accompli of the sexual revolution. The “National Catholic Bioethics Center” exists to negotiate the terms of surrender, not to defend the faith. Qui non condemnat, condonat (He who does not condemn, condones).
Symptomatic Decay: The Neo-Church as Accomplice
This case is the rotten fruit of Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae. By proclaiming “religious liberty” and the “autonomy of the temporal sphere,” the conciliar revolution disarmed the Church’s public voice, reducing morality to “dialogue” and “conscience.” The result: “Catholic” bioethicists are consulted by secular media as one opinion among many, while the conciliar sect’s “bishops” remain silent on the legislative front, having long ago traded the munus regendi for a seat at the Masonic table. The Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton—a Protestant—acted more decisively to save the child’s life (securing a court order for treatment) than the entire hierarchy of the “Church in Texas.” Facta non verba.
The “parents'” attorney complains of “political theater.” No: it is the theater of the absurd, staged by a society that has legalized the sale of human flesh and the contractual killing of the defective. The neo-church’s response? “Surrogacy exploits both mother and child… should be banned,” says Live Action’s Christina Bennett. Banned by whom? The same secular state that legalized it? The only authentic ban is the divine and natural law, enforced by a true Catholic hierarchy wielding the potestas iurisdictionis. Since 1958, that hierarchy has been eclipsed. The “popes” from John XXIII to Leo XIV (Prevost) have presided over the auto-demolition of the Church’s legislative and teaching authority, replacing the Depositum Fidei with the aggiornamento of the world.
The Only Remedy: Restauratio, Not Reform
The article ends with a whimper: “Other countries have done it or have at least put severe restrictions on it.” This is the counsel of despair. The solution is not “restrictions” on an intrinsic evil—malum non est temperandum—but the restoration of the Social Kingship of Christ (Quas Primas, Pius XI, 1925): “If rulers of states… wish to maintain their authority inviolate and contribute to the increase of their homeland’s happiness, let them not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ.” A Catholic state would criminalize surrogacy as crimen contra naturam and homicidium, void all such contracts ab initio (pacta illicita sunt nulla), protect the surrogate mother from coercion, and guarantee the child’s right to its biological parents and the Faith. The “contracting couple” would face prosecution for solicitation of murder, not a civil suit for damages.
The NC Register’s reportage is a monument to the neo-church’s irrelevance. It documents the abyss while refusing to name the Author of the light that alone can illuminate the way out. Non est aliud nomen sub caelo datum hominibus, in quo oporteat nos salvari (Acts 4:12). The surrogate mother, a lone voice crying in the wilderness—”No woman should be forced to kill the baby inside her”—possesses more Catholic sensus fidei than the entire “National Catholic Bioethics Center” combined. She fled to Texas; the true Church must flee to the Catacombs, there to preserve the Traditio until the Restauratio.
Source:
Surrogate Mother Faces $100,000 Lawsuit From Biological Parents for Refusing to Abort Baby (ncregister.com)
Date: 21.08.2026