There is something sad in death, without any doubt: it is sad that our near and dear leave this world. But contemporary culture, the culture of radical secularization has reduced this issue to a marginal problem, i.e. a problem which should be ignored, for one reason or another. Our attitude toward death is wrong: yes, we should be sad in such situations, we should respect the deceased ones, it is true. Notwithstanding, what is much sadder is a wasted life, a life deprived of love, faith and care of others. Not that death is terrible in itself, as we already stated; terrible is a life which has not fulfilled itself. It is a disaster to live one's whole life in darkness, thinking that life is deprived of any meaning; or, giving oneself to material pleasures and fornication, to condemn oneself to eternal torment in Hell. We need to reflect on our life, on the meaning of life, on our acts and moral conduct. Atheism has disastrous ramifications not only because it rejects God, but also because it deceives the human beings whose way of thinking is influenced by its principles. Atheism makes us look at the phenomenon of death as a natural process, as an event which proves that man is part of nature. And the truth is the opposite: death shows that man is different; only man has an idea of what is death, and only man can really be afraid of death. Finally, there is a singularity in death. Singularity means a phenomenon which is unique, which is not common nor general. One cannot describe what happens when there is singularity. This notion comes from Physics where special types of events are signified. Singular are such events and processes whose properties, or course, or direction, cannot be predicted nor defined. Singularity is present in the so-called black holes, hypothetical material entities where the density of matter is negative, and gravitation- inimaginable. It is claimed that singularity cannot be even reflected upon- if a given person found him/herself in a black hole, he/she will never understand it, will never be able to think about it. Death is a singular event in such a sense- there is no way to communicate any information about it, information which will pass beyond the borderline between life and death. And in this singularity our conviction that there is another reality beyond death is rooted- we know that death is not exactly a natural process, we know that there is something more in it, and we intuitively know that there is another reality beyond it. It is evident that death is a transition, and there must be another reality where the process of transition takes us; but no one could return from there and tell us how it is like in Hereafter. Science will never be able to describe this transiiton completely, for it lacks again this information which exists only in a state of singularity. Death remains a mystery and its experience is the only certain source of real knowledge. The rest is a matter of faith!

"Young Francis" Logline: A privileged young man in medieval Italy turns his back on a life of revelry and riches to dedicate his life to helping the most needy. Summary In the medieval town of Assisi, the wife of a wealthy cloth merchant is experiencing long, painful labour. A mysterious BEGGAR advises her to go to a stable to give birth, and while others think him mad, PICA di BERNARDONE, the woman with child, agrees. The baby is born soon after. The Beggar asks to hold the child and presses a cross on the child's shoulder telling the mother her son will do great things. When PIETRO di BERNARDONE returns from a selling trip to France, he is filled with joy at the sight of his son. He vows to give the child everything he could ask for, promising a life of riches and indulgences. In honor of his many business dealings in France and his wife's origins, he nicknames the child FRANCESCO.

On the one hand, the percentage of infertility among young couples is increasing; on the other hand, there are many ways to "produce" children in an artificial, "technological" way. The latter option seems tempting. Technologies today are seen as substitutes for many human activities; they take the role of human beings with the aim to "improve" our well-being. Methods such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) demonstrate that people today rely too much on technologies to solve their problems. Of course, there are couples honestly believing that in vitro procedures are safe and do not violate any principle of morality. This lack of knowledge is thus part of the problem: we are surrounded by an ocean of information, this "ocean" being full of every type of idea, theory, conception, and so forth. But the information regarding in vitro fertilization is "filtered." It is often subjected to censorship, or is distorted in such a way as to show that in vitro procedures are completely "safe" and that this procedure only yields positive effects for the couples and the society as a whole. The present book will show that things are not that simple: artificial methods employed for reproduction are often harmful and are always immoral.

We are living in uncertain times. People are striving for freedom, and at the same time prefer to exist in subordination. They aspire to look "different," to be "themselves," to maintain their "personality" and "authenticity." Freedom is such a concept that seems unnecessary today. Everyone is free, we tend to think, and even if sometimes it happens that a person declare him/herself not free, we believe that it is merely an exception. People should think more about the progress, about their common future, and not to dispute such "irrelevant" issues. If we are not free, why then can we express our opinion (in the majority of cases) so easily and without any troubles? The current book turns upon the Parable of the Grand Inquisitor, told by the Russian writer Dostoyevsky. After so many disasters that occurred in the 20th century, it is time to recall this legend and to ask together with the writer, "Do people have the disposition to withdraw from their freedom in order to gain more material goods, or pleasures, or security?" Why choose freedom over security? Having in mind the emergence, and even the (relative) success of totalitarian political movements and regimes, such as National-socialism, Communism and Fascism, we must admit that the scientific and technological progress, the variety of democratic constitutions, and all charters of human rights that we have now in the world, do not secure the presence of freedom.