What Does the Church Say About Surrogacy?

Before considering its morality, the practice must be described precisely. The word “surrogacy” covers several distinct procedures whose biological and ethical implications are not identical.

Traditional and gestational surrogacy

Two main forms are distinguished by the origin of the egg. In traditional or “genetic” surrogacy, the surrogate is also the child’s biological mother: her own egg is fertilized, most often by insemination, using sperm from the intended father or a donor. She is therefore genetically related to the child whom she has nevertheless undertaken to relinquish.^[9]

In gestational surrogacy, now the dominant form, the surrogate contributes no genetic material. An embryo conceived through in vitro fertilization using the gametes of the intended parents—or donors—is transferred to her. She “lends” her womb for nine months while having no genetic relationship to the child. This is precisely the “womb-lending” named by the Catechism.^[10] Donum vitae had already defined and condemned both arrangements together.^[11]

This technical distinction has limited moral significance: in both cases, a woman carries a child in order to hand the child over, and the child is conceived for transfer to a third party. The Church’s judgment does not depend on whether a genetic link exists, but on the nature of the act itself.

“Commercial” and “altruistic” surrogacy

Commercial surrogacy, in which the surrogate is paid beyond reimbursement of expenses, is often contrasted with so-called “altruistic” surrogacy, presented as a freely offered act of generosity, frequently within a family or close circle.

This contrast is partly misleading. The boundary between reimbursement and payment is porous, and the sums involved can equal several years of income in poorer countries.^[12] For the Church, moreover, payment does not change the root of the problem: paid or unpaid, a woman undertakes to carry a child in order to give the child away, and the child remains the object of an agreement concluded before conception.^[13] Gratuitousness may lessen economic exploitation, but it removes neither the objectification of the child nor the instrumentalization of the woman’s body.

Surrogacy is no marginal phenomenon. Within a few decades it has become a globalized industry, organized through agencies, fertility clinics, law firms, and matching platforms.

A geography of inequality

The map of surrogacy largely overlaps the map of economic inequality. Intended parents generally come from wealthy countries where the practice is prohibited or tightly restricted; surrogate mothers are often recruited in poorer countries or regions, where payment for a pregnancy represents substantial income. The United States remains a major center, with an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 surrogacy births each year, while Ukraine, Georgia, and formerly India have hosted large-scale reproductive tourism.^[14]

India illustrates the drift. Having become the “low-cost surrogacy capital of the world” in the 2000s, it saw clinics multiply in which poor and sometimes illiterate women signed contracts they could not read—according to investigations, 90% did not even receive a copy of the contract—and lived in supervised dormitories until delivery. After repeated scandals, India eventually closed commercial surrogacy to foreigners.^[15]

A multibillion-dollar trade

The practice carries considerable economic weight. The worldwide surrogacy market was estimated at more than $17 billion in 2023, with growth projections reaching tens of billions by 2030.^[16] The cost of a complete arrangement varies greatly: from tens of thousands of dollars in supposedly “low-cost” destinations to more than one hundred thousand dollars in the United States, including agency, medical, and legal fees.^[17]

These figures are not merely economic data. They reveal that surrogacy involves money circulating in exchange for the handover of a child—a fact its advocates attempt to obscure with the language of “gift” and “support,” but which the market records without euphemism.

The Church’s teaching on surrogacy is not an improvised response to a contemporary fashion. It follows long-standing principles concerning marriage, procreation, and human dignity, and has been stated with remarkable consistency for nearly forty years.

Donum vitae (1987): the first explicit condemnation

The reference doctrine was set out in Donum vitae, published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 22 February 1987 under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. To its own question—“Is surrogate motherhood morally licit?”—the instruction answers directly:

“No, for the same reasons which lead one to reject heterologous artificial fertilization: for it is contrary to the unity of marriage and to the dignity of the procreation of the human person.” — Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum vitae, 22 February 1987, II, A, 3^[18]

The text adds that surrogate motherhood constitutes “an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love” and “offends the dignity and the right of the child to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up by his own parents.”^[19]

The Catechism: a child is a gift, never something owed

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this teaching. Paragraph 2376 directly addresses techniques involving a third party:

“Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2376^[20]

Paragraph 2378 then states the principle that illuminates the whole question: a child is not a thing one may claim a right to obtain.

“A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The ‘supreme gift of marriage’ is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged ‘right to a child’ would lead.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2378^[21]

This formula—a child is a gift, never something owed—is the keystone of the Catholic position. It does not deny the suffering of infertile couples; it refuses to turn that suffering into a right exercised over another person.

Dignitas personae (2008) and Dignitas infinita (2024)

In 2008, Dignitas personae, signed by Cardinal William Levada with Benedict XVI’s approval, confirmed Donum vitae amid advances in biotechnology.^[22] The declaration Dignitas infinita, published by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on 8 April 2024, then placed surrogacy among “grave violations of human dignity,” alongside abortion, euthanasia, human trafficking, and war.

The declaration identifies a double violation, first against the child:

“The Church also takes a stand against the practice of surrogacy, through which the immensely worthy child becomes a mere object. [...] A child is always a gift and never the object of a contract.” — Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas infinita, 8 April 2024, no. 48^[23]

And then against the woman:

“The practice of surrogate motherhood also violates the dignity of the woman, whether she is coerced into it or chooses to subject herself to it freely. With such a practice, the woman is detached from the child growing in her and becomes a mere means subservient to the arbitrary gain or desire of others.” — Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas infinita, no. 50^[24]

Pope Francis’s appeal for a universal ban

On 8 January 2024, in his address to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See, Pope Francis made the abolition of surrogacy an issue of peace and justice:

“the path to peace calls for respect for life, for every human life, starting with the life of the unborn child in the mother’s womb, which cannot be suppressed or become an object of trafficking. In this regard, I find regrettable the practice of so-called surrogate motherhood [...]. I express my hope for an effort by the international community to prohibit this practice universally.” — Pope Francis, address to the diplomatic corps, 8 January 2024^[25]

This request for a universal ban goes beyond internal moral disapproval: it calls on states to protect children and women in law from a practice judged intrinsically dehumanizing.

The magisterial judgment rests on four principal reasons that reinforce one another. None is purely religious: each can be understood and discussed by anyone concerned with human dignity.

A child is not the object of a contract

The most fundamental reason is that surrogacy makes the child the object of a contract concluded before conception. Before the child exists, an agreement between adults fixes who commissions the child, who carries the child, to whom the child will be handed over, and sometimes at what price. Instead of being welcomed as a gift, the child becomes a product to be delivered.

The Catechism calls this an alleged “right to a child” that would reduce the child to “a piece of property.”^[26] Dignitas infinita distinguishes legitimate desire from the false right derived from it:

“The legitimate desire to have a child cannot be transformed into a ‘right to a child’ that fails to respect the dignity of that child as the recipient of the free gift of life.” — Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas infinita, no. 49^[27]

The inseparable link between union and procreation

For the Church, the transmission of human life belongs within the spouses’ total gift of themselves to one another. Donum vitae speaks of a bond that human beings may not sever on their own initiative between the unitive and procreative meanings of the conjugal act.^[28] Surrogacy radically separates them: conception takes place in a laboratory, gestation is entrusted to a third party, and upbringing belongs to still others. The child originates in a technical and contractual arrangement rather than in the parents’ mutual gift.

The Catechism observes that such techniques entrust “the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists” and establish “the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person.”^[29]

The woman’s dignity reduced to a function

Surrogacy treats a woman’s body as an instrument of gestation separable from her person: her womb is rented, her pregnancy governed by contract, and the affective bond inevitably formed with the child she carries treated as something to neutralize. Contracts often include clauses regulating lifestyle, diet, medical examinations, and even abortion in the event of an anomaly—signs that during pregnancy the woman is subjected to another’s will.^[30]

This is the meaning of Dignitas infinita no. 50: the woman “becomes a mere means subservient to the arbitrary gain or desire of others.” The violation remains whether the arrangement is paid or “altruistic,” although economic exploitation aggravates it in poor countries.

The planned rupture of the maternal bond

During nine months, a unique biological and affective bond forms between the woman and the child she carries: hormonal exchanges, recognition of the voice, and the beginnings of attachment. Surrogacy organizes the rupture of this bond in advance: the woman undertakes to separate from the child at birth. Donum vitae calls this “an objective failure to meet the obligations of maternal love.”^[31] Studies and testimonies indicate that this first separation is not neutral for the child and may leave a lasting mark.^[32]

An honest examination must present the practice in its strongest light before judging it. Its defenders offer serious arguments, often motivated by genuine compassion.

“It is an altruistic gift of love”

The argument. In its “altruistic” form, surrogacy is said to be an act of heroic generosity: out of love, a woman gives nine months of her life and accepts the risks of pregnancy so that an infertile couple may know the joy of raising a child.

Its limit. Generosity alone cannot make the act good, because what is “given” does not belong to the giver: the child is a person, and no person can give another person away. A good intention does not change the nature of the act. Moreover, experience suggests that wholly altruistic surrogacy is rare and often serves as the moral showcase for a market that is overwhelmingly commercial.^[33] Asking the woman to treat separation from the child as the natural completion of her “gift” also requires her to suppress maternal attachment in advance.

“A woman is free to dispose of her body”

The argument. A consenting adult woman may do as she wishes with her body, including placing it at the service of another’s procreation. A ban would therefore be paternalistic.

Its limit. Pregnancy does not concern only the woman’s body: it also concerns a child who gave no consent. One person’s freedom ends where another’s dignity begins. Consent is also fragile here. Abolitionist feminists argue that a woman signing the contract cannot know the unpredictable experience ahead and therefore cannot give fully informed consent.^[34] When economic necessity secures consent, it is constrained rather than free, as Dignitas infinita notes in referring to exploitation of the mother’s material needs.^[35]

“It answers the real suffering of wanting a child”

The argument. Infertility is a devastating trial. Refusing surrogacy appears to condemn loving couples to hopeless suffering when a solution is available.

Its limit. The Church fully recognizes this suffering but distinguishes a good desire from a right over another person. As the Catechism teaches, “a child is not something owed, but is a gift.”^[36] Relieving one suffering by creating others for the surrogate and the child is no true solution. Adoption offers a path on which love is exercised without turning anyone into an object.

“Good regulation prevents abuse”

The argument. Exploitation, trafficking, and commodification are blamed on commercial surrogacy and lawless jurisdictions. A free, carefully regulated arrangement with screening and support is therefore said to be ethical.

Its limit. Regulation may reduce some abuses, but it does not touch the root problem: not the quality of the contract, but the existence of a contract concerning a child. Dignitas infinita says the violation remains whether the woman is coerced or freely chooses to submit to it.^[37] International experience also shows that the line between “altruistic” and commercial arrangements is repeatedly crossed, while no legislation can remove the grief of separation or the child’s initial objectification.

“The child is wanted and will therefore be happy”

The argument. A child born through surrogacy has been long awaited, deeply desired, and surrounded by love from conception.

Its limit. Being wanted is not the same as being received as a gratuitous gift. Testimony from people born through surrogacy also complicates the idealized narrative. Olivia Maurel, born to a surrogate mother in the United States and now spokesperson for the Casablanca Declaration, says:

“Under this contract, we ultimately become our parents’ property, their possession. A child who is going to be bought and sold is placed at the center of a contract.” — Olivia Maurel, born through surrogacy, spokesperson for the Casablanca Declaration^[38]

Her testimony shows that a child’s happiness cannot simply be presumed in order to justify the practice.

It is inaccurate to portray opposition to surrogacy as a Catholic peculiarity. Here the Church’s teaching converges with feminist, legal, medical, and secular institutional voices, confirming that its reasons are not merely confessional.

The Casablanca Declaration (2023)

On 3 March 2023 in Casablanca, around 100 experts of 75 nationalities—lawyers, doctors, psychologists, anthropologists, and human-rights advocates—adopted a joint declaration calling for the universal abolition of surrogacy through an international convention. It asks states to prohibit the practice in all forms and penalize intermediaries and commissioners.^[39] Its advocates are not a confessional group: spokesperson Olivia Maurel describes herself as a “feminist and atheist.”^[40]

Abolitionist feminism

Part of the feminist movement opposes surrogacy precisely in the name of women. These campaigners say that surrogate motherhood reduces women to a “reproductive function” and constitutes “violence against all women.”^[41] They reject the fiction of free consent amid economic domination and refuse to let the female body become a rentable resource.

French and European law

French secular law also set prohibitions. On 31 May 1991, the Court of Cassation, sitting in full court, held that an agreement by which a woman undertakes, even without payment, to conceive and carry a child for abandonment at birth violates the principles that the human body and personal status are not at one’s disposal.^[42] The 1994 bioethics law codified that judgment in Article 16-7 of the Civil Code: “Any agreement relating to procreation or gestation on behalf of another is void,” with the rule declared a matter of public policy.^[43]

At European level, on 23 April 2024 the Parliament voted 563 to 7 to revise the anti-trafficking directive so that it explicitly includes the exploitation of surrogacy among forms of trafficking when coercion or deception is involved.^[44]

Rejecting surrogacy does not mean turning away from couples suffering because they cannot have a child. The Church distinguishes firmness concerning the act from compassion for people.

The desire for a child is good, but a child is not a right

The Church recognizes the desire for a child as one of the deepest and noblest desires of the human heart. It encourages medical research into infertility, provided that it is “placed at the service of the human person.”^[45] It rejects not the desire itself, but its transformation into a right exercised over another person. The challenge and greatness lie in receiving the child as a hoped-for gift, not demanding the child as a possession.

Adoption: loving a child who already exists

For those whose desire cannot be fulfilled through morally legitimate means, the Catechism proposes a fruitful path of love:

“The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.” — Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 2379^[46]

Adoption reverses the logic of surrogacy: rather than producing a child to satisfy a desire, it welcomes a child who already exists and needs a family. The gift no longer moves from the child toward adults, but from adults toward the child.

Accompanying people, including children already born

Firmness in principle takes nothing away from the dignity of children born through surrogacy. Like all children, they are persons of infinite worth, to be loved and welcomed without reservation. The condemnation concerns a practice, never the children born from it or the couples who turned to it in distress. The Church calls for accompaniment in truth and mercy: naming evil to protect the weakest without ever crushing the wounded.

• What Does the Church Say About In Vitro Fertilization? — the assisted-reproduction technique underlying almost all surrogacy arrangements.
• Why Does the Church Prohibit Contraception? — the link between union and procreation.
• Why Does the Church Reject Abortion? — the dignity of human life from conception.
• What Is Natural Law? — the shared rational foundation of these positions.
• What Does the Church Say About Sacramental Marriage? — the framework for transmitting life.