1. Your Eminence you led the Holy Delegation to a special session of the United Nations on Children held in New York in 2002. What was your impression of that event?
My impression was very good. I was positively struck by the numerous interventions, many from heads of state, which demonstrated that the family is irreplaceable important for children from birth - or better - from conception - (in accordance with the reserves made by the Hole See to the approval of the Convention on the Rights of Children) to the age of 18. It was also very interesting to see many boys and girls many very young, taking part in the work groups. Moreover everywhere there were significant posters of children and young people. One of them a play on words which can be understood in English, French and Spanish: We are not the source of problems we are the resources to solve them" Source and resource is an answer which perhaps not even UNICEF expected with regard to the question of world population.
Children are not an unbearable weight; they are not the cause of pollution. They are instead a marvelous gift for the family for society. Woe to those countries that attack the source of life with contraception and sterilization, or life itself with the crime of abortion (as if this were a right cfr Evangelium Vitae, 11)! Woe to Europe with its demographic Winter!
Several delegations present at the United Nations underlined the right of children to have a real family founded on marriage, a family that welcomes and educates children. This is procreation, which I like to call integral because it is not only biological. Another poster comes to mind: "We children are not the future we are the present!"
The final document is positive on the whole and some difficulties were overcome through discussion, which was not always easy. The work of the Holy See Delegation, with all the support of Archbishop Renato Martino and his co-workers, was recognised as most profitable. I received many words of encouragement for my intervention, which was simple and to the point, based completely on the experience of the Church "an expert in humanity" and always a defender of the child. The teaching of Pope John Paul II was kept well in mind.

2. What were the main difficulties encountered?
There was a considerable dynamic of work, dialogue and discussion during the sessions. Some delegation were very concrete and convinced, such as the United States (which supported, already previously, the values of the family, chastity, sound education in human sexuality) and certain southern American countries such as Argentina, Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, and many Muslim countries etc. Other delegations obviously adopted a group discipline. These included the delegation of the European Union, and the group from Rio, with very ambiguous statements; and the Canadian delegation which, from beginning to end, insisted on "other services" for children and youth (contraception, no genuine reference to the family, abortionist attitude) giving an interpretation which it is impossible to share.

In many cases we saw a desire to manipulate things, despite the evident lack of truth, human depth and respect for the rights of children. Unless there is full recognition of the fundamental right to life of the children, everything will fall! Fortunately there was a good representation of religions at the UN meeting with the intervention of different delegates with the support of the Arigatou Foundation. I myself took part with a special address. I think that religions can play an important part in promoting respect for the life and dignity of children and for peace.

3. Your Eminence, you insisted in the demographic aspect with regard to children and you spoke of "poor Europe". What did you mean?
If having children is something to be avoided at all costs, as if they were an unbearable burden and if pregnancy is considered a sickness, then inexorably Europe will fall into a demographic winter. By coincidence a few days after the Special UN Session on Children, I attended a congress in Moscow 30 May to June 1, 2002 on the theme "The Family, tomorrow's hope". In Moscow I saw the effects of the past pro-abortion ideology, so fierce and cruel, accompanied by the weakening of family stability, which lead to the denial of children's rights. Another congress held in Berlin and sponsored by the Presidents of Germany and France, respectively Johannes Rau and Jacques Chirac, was dedicated to the theme "Demography and well-being - a New place for the family in the economy and in society". If we want a future worthy of mankind, the family cannot be forgotten, and everyone must be aware of the effects of its destruction, as it emerges from the demographic problem. The myth of overpopulation has collapsed as we can see from the present figures compared to estimates made years back. It was said that by 2050 the world population, today a little more than 6 billion, would be 11 billion! Whereas to day according to experts such as Dumont, with reliable information, the figure will be nearly 9 billion. The problems lies not in the quantity, but rather quality. Resources, instead of diminishing, with work, imagination and respect for the environment, will grow and so will solidarity of rich countries towards poor countries.
The Pope often encourages "globalisation of solidarity. Rich countries must not love closed in their egoism, indifference, this would be "social Darwinism" in which the strongest, the riches survive and the poor fall exhausted along the way, without help or hope. One terrible problem is when children have no family. This is real poverty.

4. Your Eminence did you read the article by Mr Sartori, who affirms the opposite, published in the Italian daily Corriere della Sera?
Yes I did and also the clarifications, I cannot understand why someone so informed would be so badly informed on this subject. Perhaps more dialogue is necessary and better circulation of information.

5. Your Eminence in Italy the protection of the human embryo has been defended. What is your opinion?
This is undoubtedly a positive fact demanded by reason and science, law worthy of the name and not only by faith. All that science can say about the biological state of the human embryo, its individuality, and which the Pope recalled in the Evangelium Vitae encyclical (cfr. 60) helps to justify the dignity of this human person and his or her right to life. There is no opposition between faith and reason, just as there is no opposition on the question of human life, the personal status of the human embryo, from the moment of conception: this is a truth and not only for Catholics and other believers. The process of increasing awareness of this truth is very positive.

6. Your eminence what is your opinion of the affirmation made by Nobel Prize winner Rita Levi Montalcini that for the first fifteen days there is no person only a "clot of cells"?
Perhaps she lacks the courage to speak out in front of more than 70 other Nobel winners, and above all the will to reflect on questions that come from philosophy, because an authentic scientist cannot restrict his work to the one dimension of science. For me, a wise man who deserves credit is Jerome Lejune with whom I have spoken several times. His conclusions are quite different from those of Professor Levi Montalcini, but his scientific expertise is certainly not inferior. Indeed I cannot understand why his findings have not been given due consideration when Nobel prizes are designated.
In Italy recognition of the duty to protect the embryo is a significant and positive step, but the path ahead is still long… I imagine that goal will one day be reached with wisdom, honouring the rich history of the homeland not only of St Thomas Aquinas, giant of thought, but also of sound juridical tradition wounded by the abortion law. The Pope's teaching in defence of the Family and Life is a great gift and many are beginning to understand what is the truth and where it lies!
I am convinced that the day will come when there is a general conversion to the truth mentioned above and that many will feel shamed, as many already do today, of slavery and racial discrimination!

7. Your Eminence, and about free unions outside of marriage?
It is a shame that no one realises that the lack of juridical coherence implicated by free unions! Our Council prepared a document entitled: "Family, matrimony and 'free unions' (LEV 2000). These unions offer nothing to society or to themselves; they feel no obligations or duties, they have no desire for stability. At least implicitly they demand benefits as if they were valid alternatives for an authentic marriage and a real family. All believers have the moral obligation to support the family if they want a future, Pope John Paul II said the future of humanity passes by the family. If there is no family, there is no future. Poor few children who will be born without parents responsible for forming their personality! We are advancing to the grey kingdom of solitude, where the family is seen as a "club" with free entry and exit, enjoying the legal aspects, where for the "couple" the only thing that counts is the fact of living together here and now!
No one, Catholics in particular can have an easy conscience when they vote in support of this situation.

8. Your Eminence what about assisted fecundating?
It is important that Italy has rejected heterologous FIVET. But this cannot lead us to see as legitimate homologous FIVET which de-humanises the meaning of human sexuality and separates artificially something inseparable: the unifying and pro-creative significance of the sexual act (cfr Humane Vitae 12) in its integral capacity of self-giving.
This truth cannot be put aside by legislators. I will not speak any longer on this theme because it has been dealt with amply by the bishops in this country. The Church in Italy has a great capacity and authority for illumination. I am from Latin America and in our countries there is a battle, with much dialogue and not without difficulties for the truth in this field.

9. Your Eminence, it is good that maximum three embryos can be implanted so as to avoid superfluous embryos, which have to be preserved until they are cruelly destroyed, don't you think.
You are right, and this is an affirmation of what is human. Today what is at stake is humankind, human truth, human anthropology. To avoid the shameful procedure in the United Kingdom, the destruction of about 5,000 frozen embryos because they were five years old…is a shame less. The number of people eliminated with an unjust capital sentence is smaller. But, admitting the planting in the uterus of only three embryos on the condition that only three are produced without the selection of the best to be implanted, is still "programming death" for most of the embryos produced. According to reliable statistics, for every 100 women who with the best clinical assistance receive three embryos, 80 will not conceive, 20 will but, while 4 may have twins, 36 of the 60 embryos implanted were certainly condemned to die. This means that 276 of the 300 embryos produced were condemned to die. And this on the condition if the 100 women only try once. However, since failure often produces a will to satisfy a desire for a child, the number of embryos condemned to die grows with the number of implantation attempted. But humankind is not born from techniques, which plays with life and is seen more as technical "production" than Love fully human. Moreover who can say that when this step is taken other will follow?

10. Your Eminence, reproductive human cloning has been banned
This responds to a position taken by many governments. Cloning is the summa of manipulation, with all its risks for humanity, under various aspects, including eugenism…but to reject reproductive cloning does not justify other types of cloning, therapeutic cloning which implicates the killing of human embryos.

11. Your Eminence, recently the European parliament issued new resolutions and recommendations
It is known that these are not compulsory for any nation. However nations should be protected from forms of pressure, which are usually accumulated when positions taken are highly controversial.

Many thinkers, like Michel Schooyans, on certain aspects of the United Nations, in his famous books, pose the question of respect for national sovereignty. Analogous is the problem for the European Parliament. In a Europe which is great when it defends man and human dignity but confused and dark when it fails to recognize God and God's rights and in this way attacks the rights of the human person, of human life, and the human family, would you not agree that rights become no more than rhetoric declarations without consequences?