EWTN News, the flagship propaganda organ of the conciliar sect, reports on a Texas district court ordering UT Southwestern Medical Center and Children’s Medical Center of Dallas to provide “lifesaving care” for a baby, Gabriel, gestated by a surrogate mother, McKenna West, after the “intended parents,” Nausheen Gilkar and Omar Ahmed, sought to abort him upon diagnosis of hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton intervened, securing an emergency order mandating care and prohibiting the child’s removal from the state. The article frames this as a victory for “life,” yet the entire discourse—legal, rhetorical, and moral—remains imprisoned within the naturalistic, Masonic framework of the 13th and 14th Amendments, the Dobbs decision, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not a single reference to the Divine Law, the Casti Connubii of Pius XI, or the immutable rights of God over human generation appears. This silence is the signature of the apostasy.
The Abomination of Surrogacy: A Contractual Violation of the Natural Law
The very premise of the dispute—the existence of a “surrogacy contract”—is a crime crying to Heaven for vengeance. Pius XI, in Casti Connubii (1930), condemned with apostolic authority any separation of the procreative end from the conjugal act: “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, whether “gestational” or “traditional,” is not merely a “legal deconstruction of the natural family,” as the neo-conservative Gennarini timidly phrases it; it is a satanic inversion of motherhood, reducing the child to a manufactured commodity, the woman to an incubator for hire, and the marital act to a laboratory procedure. The “intended parents” here are not parents but contractors of a human life, having commissioned a child through in vitro fertilization—a process that itself entails the mass murder of embryonic human beings—and now seeking to discard the “defective product.” The surrogate, West, though she now seeks to protect the child, participated in this gravely immoral arrangement. The Texas court’s order, while temporally preserving the child’s biological life, legitimizes the underlying contract by treating the child as the object of a custody dispute between “parties” to a commercial agreement.
The Neo-Church’s “Catholic” Attorney: Rendering Unto Caesar What Belongs to God
Anthony Sirven, presented as a “Catholic Florida-based attorney,” epitomizes the theological bankruptcy of the conciliar “laity.” His entire argument rests on the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Masonic Constitution of the United States. He argues that enforcing a surrogacy contract over a human life violates the prohibition of slavery (13th Amendment) and equal protection (14th Amendment). This is idolatry of the State. The child’s right to life does not derive from the Dobbs decision, nor from the U.S. Constitution, nor from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—that Masonic manifesto of 1948 which Pius XII implicitly condemned by ignoring its naturalistic anthropology. The child’s right to life derives exclusively from the Creator who infused his immortal soul at conception (Casti Connubii, 17-18). Sirven’s reliance on Roe v. Wade and Dobbs as the pivot points of legal history reveals a mind utterly secularized: he treats the Supreme Court as the magisterium of truth. He speaks of embryos as “a special kind of property” recognized by courts, never condemning IVF as the industrial slaughter of the innocents that it is. His “Catholicism” is a veneer over Americanist legal positivism.
Gennarini and the “Universal Declaration”: The Masonic Altar of the Neo-Church
Stefano Gennarini, vice president of the “Center for Family and Human Rights,” invokes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the guarantor of “special protections during pregnancy and after birth.” He appeals to the enemy’s charter. The Declaration, born of the UN—a body explicitly condemned by Pius XII in his 1953 Christmas Message for its “naturalistic conception of the common good”—knows nothing of the Kingship of Christ, the Social Reign of the Sacred Heart, or the duty of states to profess the Catholic Faith (Pius XI, Quas Primas, 31-32). By grounding the defense of the child in “international legal conventions,” Gennarini surrenders the supernatural order to the naturalist. He calls surrogacy “dangerous” and “inhuman,” but refuses to call it intrinsically evil (malum in se), a sin against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, a violation of the child’s right to be conceived within the sacramental bond of marriage. This is the “hermeneutic of continuity” in action: preserving the vocabulary of “family” and “life” while evacuating them of their theological content.
The Silence on the Sacramental Order: The Gravest Omission
Nowhere in the article—nor in the statements of the “Catholic” experts—is there mention of:
- The sacrilege of in vitro fertilization, which separates procreation from the conjugal act and subjects human embryos to freezing, selection, and destruction.
- The duty of the surrogate mother to reject the contract ab initio as null and void before God (Canon 1055, Casti Connubii 58).
- The obligation of the State to criminalize surrogacy and IVF as crimes against the natural law, not merely regulate them via “contract law.”
- The eternal destiny of the child’s soul, the necessity of Baptism, and the scandal of a “Catholic” media outlet reporting on a “birth” without reference to the stain of original sin and the necessity of regeneration in Christ.
This silence is not accidental. It is the programmatic apostasy of the conciliar sect, which since Vatican II has replaced the Social Kingship of Christ with “religious liberty,” the Natural Law with “human rights,” and the Sacramental Economy with secular bioethics commissions.
The Texas Court: A Secular Tribunal Usurping God’s Jurisdiction
The district court’s order—mandating “medically indicated stabilizing and life-sustaining care” and barring removal “except as necessary for his medical care”—is hailed by Paxton as “the right decision.” But a secular court has no competence to adjudicate the moral status of a surrogacy contract; it can only enforce or void it under positive law. By asserting jurisdiction to “protect life” while leaving the contractual framework intact, the court acts as a paramasonic regulator of human trafficking. The child remains a ward of the State, his “custody” to be determined later by the same legal fiction that treats him as property. Sirven himself admits: “If the ‘intended parents’ seek custody… and the court rules in their favor on the basis of a contract, then that’s a problem under both the 13th and 14th Amendments.” The problem is not constitutional; it is theological. A court that derives its authority from the people, not from God (Quas Primas, 19-20), cannot deliver justice; it can only manage the logistics of iniquity.
EWTN: The Voice of the Counter-Church
That this report emanates from EWTN—founded by the “Mother Angelica” of the charismatic renewal, staffed by “clerics” of the novus ordo, and dedicated to the “new evangelization” of compromise—is the final proof. The article concludes with a subscription banner: “I agree to receive communications from EWTN.” It merchandises the tragedy of a manufactured child to build its donor base. It offers no call to prayer for the conversion of the “intended parents,” no condemnation of the fertility industry, no invocation of the Mother of God under her true titles (not the false “Fatima” of the Masonic operation). It is spiritual pornography: titillating the “pro-life” sentiment of the neo-Catholic laity while feeding them the pabulum of American constitutionalism.
Conclusion: No Salvation Outside the Kingship of Christ
Baby Gabriel’s biological life may be prolonged by the Texas order. But his immortal soul—and the souls of his “commissioning parents,” his surrogate, the judges, the attorneys, and the EWTN reporters—hangs in the balance of whether they submit to the integral Catholic Faith. The surrogacy contract is null, void, and of no effect before the Divine Majesty (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio principle applied to natural law). The hospitals’ duty is not to a court order but to the Fifth Commandment as interpreted by the Church’s perennial Magisterium. The “13th Amendment” did not abolish slavery; Christ the King abolished it by redeeming man with His Blood (Quas Primas, 13). Until the neo-church and its “experts” proclaim this Truth—Non est aliud nomen sub caelo datum hominibus in quo oporteat nos salvari (Acts 4:12)—every “victory” they celebrate is a defeat for the Kingdom of God and a triumph for the “synagogue of Satan” (Pius IX, Syllabus, 80) that governs the world through contracts, courts, and constitutions without Christ.
Source:
Texas court orders hospitals to provide lifesaving care to baby at center of surrogacy dispute (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 12.08.2026