Pope Francis has chosen to ignore God's opinion

Jesuit Catholic Jorge Mario Bergoglio, meaning Pope Francisc of Rome and the Ahmadite Muslim Imran Khan, Pakistani prime-minister have asked on one voice, on the same day of Sunday, for the debt of poor countries to be reduced.

The pope has urged on Sunday, in his Easter message "Urbi et Orbi": for "...the international sanctions which place a hurdle on the ability of the targeted countries to provide adequate assistance to their citizens to be reduced as well, and for every country to be placed in the position of dealing with the greater needs of the moment, by reducing, if not outright canceling the debt that places a burden on the balance sheets of the poorer states".

His argument: "Jesus has arisen to bring hope to the poor".

I don't know how convincing that sounds in Yiddish.

In a TV message broadcast on that same Sunday, Pakistani prime-minister Imran Khan said: "The global initiative proposed [our note: by Pakistan, the UN Secretary] is looking to lay the foundation of urgent debt deductions in developing countries, upon their request and without onerous terms".

His argument is a little more practical: that the extremely indebted countries are facing a "lack of fiscal room to maneuver" which has hindered their efforts to prevent the spread of the coronavirus (it kind of smells like a blackmail, doesn't it?, in other words, if we don't have money, then we are going to contaminate you).

Both interventions are somewhat utopian, because it is very hard to believe that they will spark more than philanthropic gestures, even if the Pakistani prime-minister wants to initiate together with the UN a platform for coordinating the aid given to underdeveloped countries.

Both interventions seem to disregard the fact that the debts of emerging markets are far smaller than the debts of the developed economies (by half); meaning, through the reduction of the debts of poor countries, the world's financial cancer only continues to grow.

But what is more disappointing is that Pope Francis seems to have forgotten the Bible, where, in Leviticus 25, is mentioned what Jews call "Shmita", with the two godly laws, the Law of Forgiveness and Release:

1. The law of forgiveness sets obligations, every seven years (in the Sabbatical year): the forgiveness of debts, the release of those who became slaves through the non-payment of debts; the return of all the guarantees brought for non-repaid loans; the land would remain unlabored for the entire year (a situation which requires savings, in the six years which precede the sabbatical year), and the naturally arisen crops need to be made available to the accidental passer by or to beasts.

2. The law of release comes into effect once every seven times seven sabbatical years (once every 49-50 years) and creates the duty to reconstitute the properties of the heirs of the Jews coming to the "Promised Land", in agreement with what their ancestors had initially received.

Christianity has eliminated the ethnic specificity initially conferred to the two Laws and made God's commands universal (the 316 commandments).

The Pope seems to have forgotten the Commandments, but he hasn't.

When he says "by reducing, if not canceling, the debt", Pope Francis shows that in fact he knows the letter of the Bible - the cyclical erasure of debt - but thinks it is too radical and deviates from it.

It is called "adaptation to the modern times" (a kind of rabbinical "takkanah").

So far away!

How tiny compared to Pope Clement the 5th, who in the Council of Vienne (France), in 1312, decreed that anyone saying that that charging interest on loans was not a sin would be considered a heretic:

"If somebody has made the mistake of saying in private that the practice of usury is not sinful, we decree that they need to be punished as heretics".

But before 1312, the Christian Church has a long list of interventions in fighting against usury: The Council of Nicaea prohibited usury between clergy, in 325 after Christ; under Charlemagne (prior to 814), the Church also expanded the ban to laymen; the second Lateran Council, of 1139 (a reaction to the consequences of the Schism), denounced interest as a form of theft, requiring it be paid back to the debtor.

Only then came Clement the 5th.

"Urbi et Orbi" means "to the city (i.e. Rome) and to the world", this being the apostolic blessing given by the pope on certain solemn occasions.

Now would be the moment for bringing God's Commandments back to the attention of the world.

Since he has stood by the utopia of reducing debts (on the same spiritual level with a politician), a reduction which in fact, would not solve the world's economic and financial problems, then he should have at least promoted the radical utopia written in Bible, which, in God's opinion, solves them!