I think the State shouldn't poke its nose into the sexual relations of consenting adults.

I support non-discrimination for homosexuals, but I think, or at least I have the right to think - without saying whether I think it or not - I have the right to think, along with the catechism of the Catholic Church, that homosexuality is morally wrong.

The family exists in order to allow women to have children and to have the protection of a male who takes care of them.

The past was more Christian? At times perhaps, in others, though, no.

I can think that you are mistaken, but I have to be ready to give my life to maintain your right to make mistakes. I have to, though, have the right to say that you're mistaken. This is the principal of the liberal society.

The new soft totalitarianism that is advancing on the left wants to have a state religion. It is an atheist, nihilistic religion - but it is a religion that is obligatory for all

The family has a social function and so it should be sustained.

On the other hand, I think that the family, the traditional family, has a fundamental social role, because it's there that children are born and the investment in children is the greatest investment a country can make. The benefits of this investment go to everyone.

Priests have to have the right to say that a sin is a sin.

For Europe, the fall of Communism has to be taken into account, and the fact that in the fight against Communism the recovery of Europe's Christian roots was the driving force.

That's possible, and in fact the legislation, the politics should graduate the advantages towards those who have children and give less to those who don't have children.

One needs to know what the hierarchy of values are from which one takes inspiration, and in a democratic society this is the subject of continuous democratic debate.

No, moral conscience is one thing, the law is another. We have to hold onto this difference.