A new study by the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector found a household headed by an individual without a high school education, including about two-thirds of illegal aliens, costs U.S. taxpayers more than $32,000 in federal, state and local benefits. That same family contributes an average of $9,000 a year in taxes, resulting in a net tax burden of $22,449 each year.

Over the course of the household's lifetime that tax burden translates to $1.1 million. If the lower figure of 12 million illegal aliens is used for estimation purposes, the total tax burden translates to $2.2 trillion.

"Would any of us buy shares in a company that we knew would produce a loss of a million dollars a share," asks Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, in response to the study. "Cheap labor is not cheap at the cost of over a million dollars per head of household."

Rector's study, "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer," examines the economics of the 17.7 million American households made up of people without a high-school degree. Using numbers from the Census Bureau, the Congressional Research Service, the Bureau of Labor Standards and other government agencies, Rector determined what they earn, what they spend and what they receive in government services.

About half of the 17.7 million households studied are illegal aliens. About two-thirds of illegal alien households are headed by someone without a high school degree. Only 10 percent of native-born Americans fit into that category.

"Over the next ten years the total cost of low-skill households to the taxpayer (immediate benefits minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least $3.9 trillion," Rector writes. "This number would go up significantly if changes in immigration policy lead to substantial increases in the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and receiving services."

Since 1971 the proportion of all people living in "traditional" family households of married couples with dependent children has fallen from 52% to 37%. Nearly a quarter of children lived with only one parent last year and nine out of 10 of those households were headed by lone mothers.

SOCIAL TRENDS SURVEY - KEY FINDINGS
In 2005 there were a record 60.2m people living in Britain. The number of households has risen 30% since 1971, but the population only rose by 8% . One in seven children live in households where no parent is working.
Source: Office for National Statistics

Sue Palmer, an independent education adviser, said she believed growing up with a single parent could be detrimental to children. "It's not many adults. What you need when children are growing up is constant consistent care from the adults who love them and that's very difficult to provide if there's just one of you," she said.

David Green, director of the Institute for the Study of Civil Society, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "If you take almost any measure - how well children do in school, whether they turn to crime, whether they commit suicide, etc - it's better to have two parents. "It's also the biggest disadvantage of lone parenthood that you're much more likely to be poor."

More children are born in Britain today outside of marriage than in most other European countries, the report also said. The average figure is 44%, compared with just 3% in Cyprus, and just 12% in Britain in the early 1970s. BBC home editor Mark Easton said that in Wales and the north east of England the numbers of children born to unmarried parents were even higher, at 52% and 55% respectively.

More than seven million people in Britain also live alone now, compared with three million in 1971. This, the report said, had left societies more fragmented and led to much less trust and co-operation between neighbours.

Other findings included: Second marriages made up two-fifths of all marriages in 2005. In the same year, the average age at first marriage in England and Wales was 32 for men and 29 for women - up from 25 and 23 respectively in 1971. Divorces in 2005 fell to 155,000 from a 1993 peak of 180,000. In 2005, 66% of single-parent families lived in rented housing compared with 22% of couples with dependent children.

'Many big ideas have struggled over the centuries to dominate the planet,' begins the argument by Jonathon Porritt, government adviser and all-round environmental guru. 'Fascism. Communism. Democracy. Religion. But only one has achieved total supremacy. Its compulsive attractions rob its followers of reason and good sense. It has created unsustainable inequalities and threatened to tear apart the very fabric of our society. More powerful than any cause or even religion, it has reached into every corner of the globe. It is consumerism.'

According to Porritt, the most senior adviser to the government on sustainability, we have become a generation of shopaholics. We are bombarded by advertising from every medium which persuades us that the more we consume, the better our lives will be. Shopping is equated with fun, fulfilment and self-identity. It is also, Porritt warns, killing the planet. He argues, in an interview with The Observer, that merely switching to 'ethical' shopping is not enough. We must shop less.

From pictures of Coleen McLoughlin weighed down with designer bags to branding endorsements by the likes of David Beckham, the image of consumerism as a universal aspiration is ubiquitous. Last week 3,000 people stormed Primark's new flagship store on London's Oxford Street before the official opening time, putting two staff in hospital and earning the description by BBC2's Newsnight of 'a plague of locusts'.

Porritt, chairman of the government's Sustainable Development Commission, has concluded that consumerism is central to the threat facing the planet, cannibalising its natural resources and producing the carbon dioxide emissions which result in climate change.

In a film for Channel Five, he points out that Britons throw away their own body weight in rubbish every seven weeks, with 100 million tonnes of waste pouring into the country's 12,000 landfill sites every year. If all six billion people in the world were to consume at the same level, we would need two new Earths to supply all the energy, soil, water and raw materials required.

The day after the Berlin declaration, when the German government confirmed its determination to press on with ratification of the European Constitution, the European Parliament has expressed a view on what to do about the constitutional 'crisis' and in particular what to do if Mrs Merkel's proposed intergovernmental conference in the second half of this year does not lead to agreement between the twenty-seven EU member states.

The SPD MEP, Klaus Hänsch, who was the Parliament's representative at the European Convention, has even suggested that if countries do not like the Constitution, then they should leave the EU altogether. He said that if there was general agreement about the way forward, the one or two nay sayes should not be allowed to impede progress.

States which did not support the substance of the constitutional treaty, he said, should ask themselves whether they want to continue to belong to the EU.

The same point of view was expressed by the veteran CDU MEP, Elmar Brok, a German like Hänsch. Brok said that if the second attempt to get the Constitution going fails, then a 'core Europe' should be created. This is an odd thing to say, since the Constitution provides precisely for the creation of core Europe, since it allows states to take initiatives among themselves without all other states having the right to prevent them. But 'core Europe' (Kerneuropa) has been a favourite idea of many Germans ever since two advisers to the then Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, published an article about it in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in 1989, before the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

The Germans know that they would easily dominate any such 'hard core' and that it would therefore represent a natural extension of their power. Brok said he did not actually want 'core Europe' because it would mean dividing the EU between first class and second class states and he claimed that this was neither in Germany's interests nor in Europe's. Brok said that France would be one of the first countries to be interested in joining such a 'core', even though of course France, like the Netherlands which is presumably also a perfect candidate for 'core' membership, voted No to the European Constitution in 2005.

Brok also used the occasion to deliver a little homily to the Poles and the Czechs about the right attitude to adopt towards the EU. Germans have a history of regarding these two nations as problems to be solved (occasionally by invasion). On this occasion, Brok said that Prague and Warsaw had to understand that solidarity was not a one-way street.

He was referring to the fact that the Polish President, Lech Kaczynski, had distanced himself while still in Berlin from the common declaration that the EU wanted to get itself back on track by 2009. Kaczynski had said, It's a nice goal but I do not think it is achievable. Europe is always a Europe of nations, and no constitution can change that. For his part, the Czech President, Václav Klaus, made it clear that the Berlin declaration was not binding.

"In an increasingly globalized world, these agreements seek to benefit rich-country exporters and firms at the expense of poor farmers and workers, with grave implications for the environment and development," the report said. There are more than 250 regional and bilateral agreements in place today and many more are in the works, according to Oxfam. These treaties already govern more than 30 percent of world trade.

Emily Jones, author of the Oxfam report, pointed to NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, as a case study. Her report said NAFTA has brought 1.3 million job losses to Mexico in 10 years. Other studies have explained how cheap agricultural imports from U.S. agribusiness concerns have made it nearly impossible for small farmers to compete.

Many reportedly have been forced from their land and become illegal migrant workers in the U.S. In fact, the implementation of NAFTA coincides with the largest wave of illegal immigration into the U.S. from Mexico in history.

NAFTA has driven many legitimate Mexican farmers out of business, and many have turned to drug cultivation, charges Charles Bowden, author of "Down By The River," and other acclaimed books about the drug business. "It's one of the unintended consequences of NAFTA," he says. In addition, with the drug crisis raging in Mexico and even threatening its national security, some are pointing to the "protections" NAFTA has provided to the drug runners.

Up to three-quarters of cocaine entering the U.S. now comes via Mexico as well as most of its marijuana. In 1996, the U.S. and Mexican governments agreed to start training Mexican soldiers in the U.S. for the "war on drugs." These elite commandos were called "Los Zetas." They have now switched sides and are working as a paramilitary security detail for the drug cartels.

According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, over the past decade, Colombia-based drug groups have allowed Mexico-based trafficking organizations to play an increasing role in the U.S. cocaine trade. In the 1980s, Colombia's drug dealers used the drug smugglers in Mexico to transport cocaine shipments across the Southwest border into the U.S. but retook possession of the narcotics once the transporters arrived in the U.S.

After the seizure of nearly 21 metric tons of cocaine in 1989, the Colombians changed the way they did business and allowed Mexico-based transportation groups to receive up to half the cocaine shipment they smuggled in exchange for their services.

According to the DEA, "virtually all heroin produced in Mexico and South America is destined for the U.S. market." This reflects a big increase since NAFTA.

The leader of England and Wales's four million Roman Catholics also questioned "whether the threads holding together democracy have begun to unravel".

The lecture delivered in Westminster made him the first Catholic leader in nearly 180 years to place a question mark over the allegiance of his church to the British state. He declared: "For my own part, I have no difficulty in being a proud British Catholic citizen. "But now it seems to me we are being asked to accept a different version of our democracy, one in which diversity and equality are held to be at odds with religion. "We Catholics - and here I am sure I speak too for other Christians and all people of faith - do not demand special privileges, but we do demand our rights."

The Sexual Orientation Regulations come into force next month after minimal debate in the House of Commons. They are aimed at stopping businesses discriminating against gays, but Christian leaders say they will force those of faith to act against their conscience.

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor said last night: "My fear is that, under the guise of legislating for what is said to be tolerance, we are legislating for intolerance. Once this begins, it is hard to see where it ends. "The question," the Cardinal added, "is whether the threads holding together pluralist democracy have begun to unravel. That is why I have sounded this note of alarm.

"I am conscious that when an essential core of our democratic freedom risks being undermined, subsequent generations will hold to account those who were able to raise their voices yet stayed silent."
He added: "What looks like liberality is in reality a radical exclusion of religion from the public sphere."
The Cardinal described the Act as a historic turning point.

The speech is likely to make uncomfortable reading for Tony Blair - he is expected to convert to Roman Catholicism after he leaves Downing Street later this year - and for Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, a staunch Catholic responsible for pushing through the Sexual Orientation Regulations.

A common charge levelled against those who question the official orthodoxy of the global warming religion is that they are acting as stooges for the western establishment and big business interests. If this is the case, then why do the high priests of the elite and kingpin oil men continue to fan the flames of global warming hysteria?

The Trilateral Commission, one of the three pillars of the New World Order in alliance with Bilderberg and the CFR, met last week in near secrecy to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how westerners live their lives.

At the confab, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger and chairman of British Petroleum Peter Sutherland , gave a speech to his elitist cohorts in which he issued a "Universal battle cry arose for the world to address global warming with a single voice."

Echoing this sentiment was General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defence Staff in London, who urged the Trilateral power-brokers to "Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide."

Allegations that sceptics of the man-made explanation behind global warming are somehow doing the bidding of the elite are laughable in the face of the fact that Rothschild operatives and the very chairman of British Petroleum are the ones orchestrating an elitist plan to push global warming fears in order to achieve political objectives.

We have a similar situation to the Peak Oil scam, which was created by the oil industry as a profit boon to promote artificial scarcity, and yet is parroted by environmentalists who grandstand as if they are in opposition to the oil companies. In his excellent article, Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government, Daniel Taylor outlines how the exploitation of the natural phenomenon of "global warming" was a pet project of the Club of Rome and the CFR.

"In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

"Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalised era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves."

Taylor also points out future British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's admonishment that only a "new world order" (world government) can help fight global warming. Other attendees at the recent Trilateral meeting raised the specter of climate change as a tool to force through tax hikes.

Calling on the United States government to adopt a "carbon monoxide control policy," former CIA boss and long term champion of creating a domestic intelligence agency to spy on Americans John Deutch, argued that America should impose a $1-pergallon increase in the gasoline tax under the pretext of fighting pollution.The lapdog media have proven adept in the past at taking their orders from the elitists in pushing higher taxes in the name of saving the environment.

"When the TC called on the United States to increase gas taxes by 10 cents at a meeting in Tokyo in 1991, The Washington Post, which is always represented at TC and Bilderberg meetings, called for such an increase in an editorial the following day," reports Jim Tucker.

Tucker writes that an essential means of achieving global government by consent over conquest, as has long been the ultimate goal of the elite, is by "fanning public hysteria" over climate change, encouraging further integration by forcing countries to adhere to international law on global warming. Such restrictions have prevented the development of third world nations and directly contributed to poverty, disease and squalor by essentially keeping them at a stone age level of progress, as is documented in The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.

People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life, cough up more tax money, and get on board with the global warming religion save being linked with Holocaust denial, are as deluded and enslaved as the tribes of Mesoamerica who, unaware of the natural phenomenon of a solar eclipse, thought their high priests could make the sky snake eat the Sun, and therefore obeyed their every demand.

Globalists love global warming! Oil industry kingpins, Bilderbergers and Rothschild minions have all put their weight behind it. This is a fraud conceived, nurtured and promulgated by elite, and to castigate individuals for merely questioning the motives behind climate change fearmongering by accusing them of being mouthpieces for the establishment is a complete reversal of the truth.

The anti-Tamiflu forces in Japan are led by Dr. Rokuro Hama, an epidemiologist and internal medicine specialist who heads the Japan Institute of Pharmacovigilance, a medical industry watchdog. Hama believes that Tamiflu can directly cause temporary neurological disorders in a small percentage of users especially young people.

That can lead to abnormal behavior, such as a seemingly happy, healthy teenager suddenly deciding to leap off a high-rise apartment building. Hama also notes that the Tamiflu doses taken in Japan can be as much as 10 times greater than the normal amount taken in the U.S., which could aggravate the side effects. "There is no possibility whatsoever" that there could be another cause behind the Tamiflu deaths, says Hama. "Ultimately it should be taken off the market."

Though the Health Ministry has said there is no clear evidence linking Tamiflu to the deaths, there is growing concern among doctors and parents in Japan over the drug's possible side effects. That is potential cause for concern in the rest of the world, because in the absence of a vaccine, Tamiflu will be the drug of first and last resort in the event of a pandemic.

The facts and the experts attest that the Iranian nuclear threat has been and remains completely dependent on expertise, technology, and components from Russia and China. Without their continued help, it is unlikely that Iran could complete its nuclear WMD program.

Yet the current Bush administration, like the Clinton and Bush Senior administrations before it, pretends that Russia and China are our "partners" in helping rein in Iran, North Korea and other "rogue" regimes. Putting all of the pressure at our disposal against Moscow and Beijing to cease this dangerous proliferation is the key to stopping the threat from Tehran.

There is no evidence of a grave and imminent danger requiring a pre-emptive military attack, especially since the consequences could be horrendous, and other more reasonable options exist. What are some of those potential consequences? Here are but a few:

An immediate widening and intensification of the violence in Iraq, as Shi'ite forces join the fray, resulting in a drastic increase in U.S. casualties.

Rather than causing Iranians to revolt against Ahmadinejad, as the neocons claim, an attack on Iran will most likely solidify Iranian nationalism behind the regime, causing even moderate Iranians to rally against the invaders, as Saddam found out when he tried the same thing.

The whole Middle East will be further destabilized; many oil fields, pipelines, tankers, and shipping ports in the region will be damaged, destroyed, or shut down; oil prices will skyrocket, and America's economy will be greatly harmed.

Russia and China will be the big winners in the region, as both powers continue to solidify their influence and play against America's image as the imperialist, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab superpower.

Anti-Americanism and Islamic jihadism will be whipped into a new frenzy.

Terrorist cells already allowed into the United States, due to our government's suicidal refusal to protect our own borders

DEBKAfile's military sources note that the exercise was launched March 27 the day before the Arab League summit opens in Riyadh, to demonstrate the Bush administration's determination not to let Iran block the Strait of Hormuz to oil exports from the Persian Gulf, or continue its nuclear program.

Taking part are the USS Stennis and USS Eisenhower strike forces.With Iran's Revolutionary Guards one week into their marine maneuvers, military tensions in the Gulf region are skyrocketing and boosting world oil prices.

Intelligence sources in Moscow claim to have information that a US strike against Iranian nuclear installations has been scheduled for April 6 at 0040 hours. The Russian sources say the US operation, code-named "Bite," will last no more than 12 hours and consist of missile and aerial strikes devastating enough to set Tehran's nuclear program several years back.

The maneuver also occurs four days after 14 British seamen and one crew-woman were seized by an Iranian Revolutionary Guards warship, with no sign that their release is imminent. London insists its marines were on routine patrol on the Iraqi side of the Shatt al Arb on behalf of the Iraqi government. Tony Blair has threatened a new phase in the crisis if the captured personnel are not speedily released.

The warplanes are flying simulated attack maneuvers on enemy shipping with aircraft and ships, hunting enemy submarines and seeking mines, off the coast of Iran.

US Navy Cmdr Kevin Aandahl declined to say when the maneuver was planned or how long it would last. He said US warships would stay out of Iranian territorial waters up to 12 miles from the Iranian coast. Tehran does not recognize this limit and claims a deeper stretch of water.

Our military sources explain the presence of the French naval strike group led by the nuclear aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle which joined the two US carriers last Friday: The group will carry out security missions in the Arabian Sea and its warplanes fly in support of NATO in Afghanistan

The intensified diplomacy comes ahead of an Arab summit expected to relaunch a Saudi-backed peace plan calling for Israel to quit all occupied Arab lands in exchange for peace.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he would not hesitate to participate if invited to an expanded meeting of the quartet of Middle East mediators that could include Saudi Arabia.US officials played down the idea, saying it was one of several possibilities under consideration and no decisions had been made.

A public meeting that brings Israeli and Saudi leaders together would be a breakthrough. The countries do not have formal relations, though there have been reports of informal Saudi contacts with Olmert.During a brief visit to Amman, Rice met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for a second time in 24 hours, as well as Jordan's King Abdullah. She will return later to Jerusalem for further talks with Olmert.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, also on a visit to the region, said yesterday that Israeli and Palestinian leaders, along with officials from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, could be invited to attend the next Quartet meeting, expected to take place in Egypt.

It is a very interesting, useful idea to consider. But we need more consultations, Ban said. The UN is part of the quartet, whose other members are the US, the European Union and Russia.

Written by the Royal Academy of Engineering, the report looks at how technology is eroding personal privacy.
It shows how abuse of technology can expose people to harm by, for instance, terrorists crafting bombs that use the biometric data stored on passports to target specific nationalities. It urges people to get more involved in the ways data about them is gathered.

Written by the Royal Academy of Engineering, the report looks at how technology is eroding personal privacy.
It shows how abuse of technology can expose people to harm by, for instance, terrorists crafting bombs that use the biometric data stored on passports to target specific nationalities.

It urges people to get more involved in the ways data about them is gathered. Instead of simply accepting that technology erodes privacy, the report suggests that designers, individuals and governments should work harder to find ways of making life more secure.

For instance, said Professor Gilbert, it is accepted that buying via an electronic transaction means surrendering information that allows an individual to be identified. In truth, he said, all a merchant needed was an assurance that the customer was old enough to buy a particular good or service and that they had enough funds to pay.

Similarly, with supermarket loyalty cards, customers are forced to hand over information that identifies them individually. This was despite the fact, said Professor Gilbert, that all the store really needed to know was what items were being bought.

"These are apparently similar things, and are all cases where it would seem people are being required to give up more identifying information than is necessary," he added.
Properly engineered technology should increase both privacy and security, said Professor Gilbert.

Among other recommendations, the report calls for the beefing up of penalties for people and companies that flout data protection laws. At the moment, warned the report, the penalties were "close to trivial".

Among the deals signed in the presence of the two leaders were $1 billion in loans for VTB Group to finance the exports of Russian commodities and goods to China over the next eight years. The loans will be evenly split between the China State Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China, VTB president Andrei Kostin said.

The China State Development Bank signed an investment deal worth up to $1 billion with the Krasnoyarsk region and Vneshekonombank, or VEB. Krasnoyarsk Governor Alexander Khloponin praised the agreement as "an important stimulus for the development of the east Siberian economy." The investment is part of a $1.5 billion loan that VEB earlier received from the Chinese bank, VEB chairman Vladimir Dmitriyev said. One-third of the money has been spent to promote Russian exports, and the rest could go to Krasnoyarsk, he said.

In another banking deal, Gazprombank secured a $100 million loan from the Export-Import Bank of China to finance imports of the Chinese equipment, technologies and services, Interfax reported.

Hu, who on Monday kicked off a three-day visit that also marks the Year of China in Russia, is reciprocating a visit by Putin to Beijing last March for the Year of Russia in China. The two leaders are expected to oversee the signing of agreements worth more than $4 billion, highlighting China's hunger for Russian energy resources and trade deals.

On Tuesday, Hu and Putin are to meet again to open the National Exhibit of China at the Crocus-Expo center outside the Moscow Ring Road. More multimillion-dollar agreements are to be signed there, including an agreement by Rosneft to supply a unit of China Petrochemical with 60,000 barrels of crude per day by rail, Interfax reported.

Russian Railways CEO Vladimir Yakunin said before Monday's signing ceremony that Russia was ready to ship 15 million tons of crude to China this year.
"We have a looming demographic crisis in Russia," he said. "Chinese businesses could improve the economy in the region."

Trade between the two nations has been "one of the fastest-growing bilateral flows," Westin said.
Russia has been buying a lot of Chinese machinery and equipment, with Chinese imports to Russia growing by 716 percent from 1991 to 2005, Westin said.
Russia estimates bilateral trade reached $29 billion last year, while China puts the figure at $33 billion. The two countries aim to almost triple bilateral trade to $80 billion by 2010.

ARAB states yesterday agreed to relaunch a five-year-old peace plan with Israel, which could help new UN and US efforts to revive peace talks. It offers Israel normal ties with Arab states in return for full withdrawal from land it occupied in the 1967 Middle East war.

A furious Pope Benedict unleashed a bitter attack during a sermon while on a visit to a parish church and said: "Hell exists and there is eternal punishment for those who sin and do not repent." Sounding "more of a parish priest than a Pope" the leader of the world's one billion Roman Catholics added: "The problem today is society does not talk about Hell. It's as if it did not exist, but it does."

Pope Benedict unleashed his fury during a visit to the tiny parish church of St Felicity and the Martyr Children at Fidene on the outskirts of Rome, in his capacity as bishop of the Italian capital. One churchgoer said: "The [Pontiff] was really having a go. It was a typical fire-and-brimstone sermon that you would have expected from a parish priest years ago."

Previous popes have often spoken of the existence of the Devil - St Peter, the first pope, warned: "Be vigil, be watchful, your enemy the Devil is about." Fifteen hundred years later, Pope John XXIII, known as the Good Pope, who died in 1963, said: "The greatest trick of the Devil has been to convince the world that he does not exist."
However, Pope Benedict's vision of Hell is not a Dantesque vision of flames and devils, but more of a condition and state of mind.

Speaking in 2005, he said: "Let's hope there are few men whose lives have been a total failure that is unredeemable. "Hell consists of an eternal damnation for those who have decided to die with the stain of mortal sin. "The principal punishment of Hell is the eternal separation from God."

As a theologian, the Pope wrote about Hell on several occasions. In the 1968 book, Introduction to Christianity, he described Hell as a state of existential abandonment, "the loneliness into which love can no longer reach".

In God and the World, a book-length interview in 2000, he said the church reminds people of Heaven and Hell in order to underline that "there is a responsibility before God, that there is a judgment, that human life can either turn out right or come to disaster".

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines Hell as "the state of definitive self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed".