This is the reason why, asking for the remittance of the poor nations' debts, as it happens almost everywhere, is like asking the swindler to renounce--for a noble principle--the lucre he obtains, thanks to his crime. It is clear that, in this case, there is no debt, it doesn't exist at all because of the unlawful nature of this case.
The so-called rich peoples flattered themselves to be rich. They realised, indeed, to be poor when the owners of money ask them for the payment of their (not due) debt. [Japan, Russia, and South America experienced this entire situation, bitterly.]
Making every people owners of their money, at the issue's act, means to change people from debtors into owners of their money, according to the teaching of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church: everyone is an owner.
This is the reason why the expression: the money of the poor is the money of the Jubilee, shouldn't be considered surprising or shocking (even if it is provoking).
According to the Mosaic Law, he who receives has got an obligation as well, since he who borrowed something must give it back.
According the Christian Law, he who gives something, is obliged.
The word "due" implies, necessarily, the juridical pretension of the one who receives something. This is a universal right because it is recognised by every man in himself.
Nowadays, the man is poor because he receives something which is "on loan" to the Mosaic Law and "due" to the Christian Law. This "something" that is on loan (to the Mosaic Law) and "due" (to the Christian one) is money.
Money is, indeed, a measure of value and a value of measure in the same time, since every unit of measure is determined by the corresponding quality of what it can measure. If the metre is characterised by the quality of length because it measures length, money has got the quality of value because it measures value.
Therefore, even if money is a collective good it is also a good of individual private property, that is a good of the bearer, since "the value of the measure" is an induced value (and not a credit one) which is incorporated into the symbol.
The monetary value, which is not created by who issues symbols but by who accepts them, has no cost.
It has no cost because the value is generated by the simple expectation of the other people's behaviour, as a condition for his own behaviour. Everyone is, indeed, willing to accept money against goods, because he expects to give money against goods. This means that money has a value because we conventionally decide that it must have it.
The monetary value is not created by who issues symbols but by who accepts them, that is the parties of the convention. Therefore, money, at the issue's act, must be considered a national collective property and not a central bank one, as it happens today. When money was made out of gold the bearer was the owner. With the nominal money (born in 1694 with the foundation of the bank of England) the bearer has become the debtor, that is "temporary owner" as long as the loan lasts.
In order to understand this fundamental changment, let us examine a simple example. Some times ago, the person who found a golden nugget, embezzled it without any debt with the mine. Today, instead of the mine we have the central bank; instead of the nugget a piece of paper, instead of the property, the debt.
Therefore, the substitution of golden money with nominal money has not been the simple changment of the marketing nature of the symbol, but a deep and substantial juridical innovation: peoples have been surreptitiously transformed from owners to debtors of their money, because the bank issues money only through loans.
The monetary circulation is, therefore, a circulation of real goods of induced value, which are burdened by loans at 100% to the central bank.
The Mosaic Law has come true thanks to the coming of the "debt money." The formula "lend the poor" means that the man has become poor because he "borrowed" something (according to the Mosaic Law) which is "due" (according to the Christian Law).
The consideration that the Christian Law is right is proved by the fact that if a governor of the central bank issues money on a desert isle, there is obviously no monetary value because there isn't a community {which is willing to accept the money, thus giving it value.}Editor's Note.
This example is simple but definitive and unquestionable to prove that, at the issue's act, money must be considered a property of men and not of juridical ghosts: central banks ltd. Co.
Nowadays, all the peoples have become poor because the "property money" has been substituted by the "debt money".
This is the reason why the peoples of the Third Word are, firstly, lacerated by debts and secondly, by hunger. They are illegitimately burdened by this debt when they accept to receive "their" money on loan; money that, at the issue's act, should be "credit" to them because they, themselves, create value, accepting it.
On these premises, the Church of Rome must issue the "money of the poor" in order to set human beings free from the poverty which is wickedly planned by the "big usury".
The church must have no fear to do this, because it makes it according to the spirit of poverty and service. While the central bank issues and lends money following the Mosaic Law, the Church of Rome issues and gives following the Christian Law.
When money was made out of gold, it was not possible to attribute it gratis to the issue because of the high cost of gold. Today, with the symbols of no cost, it is not only possible but dutiful as well, in order to release humanity from the domination of the big usury. We are sure that money, issued by the church, could be really in accordance with the great event of the Jubilee. Moreover, all the religions, which are against usury, will certainly agree, in an essentially ecumenical view.