The controversy surrounding the existence and nature of the so-called Jewish "ritual crime" to shed the blood of Christians, especially children, has lasted for centuries.: to our days [the Author wrote in the 1920s] the Beylis trial gave rise to a renewal of controversy on both sides. Since the "ritual crime" established itself in the Middle Ages, it is worth talking about it here also for the subsequent periods.
[For the ritual crime and for its inspiring environment, cfr. Paepstliche (Die).,. blood.; M. Stern, Urk. Contribution.; H. L. Strace:, The. blood.; D. Cholson, The blood tank.; quote yes P. Protected, What the Popes, ecc. Cfr. also Roccadadria, In the tribe, ecc.; E. Picard, The synthesise, ecc.: The Beylis trial (end of 1913) produced a great outpouring of articles for and against the general accusation, in which there may be some historical and documentary notes to appreciate. Significant in favor of the prosecution, that of the «Roman notebooks» reproduced by various newspapers (v. the "Croix» of Paris 14 November 1913, and of the «Barcelona Diary» 7 November); against the accusation that of «New Eresie Press» of Vienna (4 November). Of historical value is the aforementioned Vernet].
First of all, the nature and characteristics of the crime in question must be established. Why a crime is "ritual", it must not only be produced by a determinant of a religious nature, – from hatred against believers of other beliefs -, but it must take on the forms or mentalities of a ritual. And this is precisely the controversial "ritual crime" which is attributed to being determined by the inveterate Israeli hatred against Christians, and expressed with certain circumstances that link the crime to a form or at least to a ritual mentality.
Thus it will be an at least implicitly ritual crime for which a Christian is tortured by the Jews during Holy Week, in commemoration of hatred of the Passion of Christ; even more so if this murder will be consummated with reproductive acts of flagellation, coronation, crucifixion, ecc. of the Redeemer, and if it will be done with sacrilege, but unfortunately a real persuasion to do what is acceptable to God, as Jesus had predicted.
It will be a fully ritual crime if the blood or viscera of the martyr is used for any use of official or superstitious Jewish ceremonies, or for any purpose of religious propitiation. However, it wouldn't be (to expose all the hypotheses) if that blood or that viscera were extracted to make a medicine, – according to the superstitions of the age-old and cosmopolitan empirical and charlatan medicine, without, let's suppose, the motive or concomitant of religious hatred.
We were saying that formal accusation is ritual in our case. The Chwolson [o. c., ed. ted. 1901, pp. 6-7, 178-210] classified the hypothetical ritual uses of Christian blood shed by Jews as follows:
1. The blood is mixed with Easter unleavened bread or the wine that is drunk in the first two meals on Easter Eve; 2. The blood is mixed with the egg that the rabbi gives to the Jewish newlyweds to eat, while receiving the wedding blessing; 3. The Israelite priest dyes his hands with it when he prepares to bless the people in the synagogue; 4. I rabbi, in the feast of purim, they send the members of their community a food prepared with Christian blood; 5. Christian blood is shed as a sacrifice pleasing to Yahweh, since after the destruction of the temple it is no longer possible to perform the ancient sacrifices of the Law; 6 A Christian child is killed to replace the Paschal lamb; 7. The Jews, at Easter, they dye their doors with Christian blood in analogy to the lamb's blood with which their ancestors dyed, as the Bible says, their gates when leaving Egypt; 8. When a Jew is dying, Christian blood or a cloth dyed with that blood is applied to his face, and it is said in a low voice in his ear: «If the Christ that Christians believe in and hope for, he is the true promised Messiah, may the blood of a Christian child, innocent killed, serve you for eternal life"; 9. To use blood as above, on Good Friday a Christian child is crucified to represent the crucifixion of Christ and make it an act of solidarity (cfr. Protected, o. C., pp. 418-9).
Such are the accusations, see the false, brought to the subject in question for centuries.
What is interesting in this list is that the "ritual" crime, as such, it is not necessarily and always a hate crime. It may be inspired by the superstitious desire to have an effective means for certain religious purposes, to the point of supposing in it an efficacy of spiritual salvation. As absurd as it may seem to those who have only a superficial knowledge of official Jewish belief, it is a fact that in certain Jewish sects the idea of ​​a certain redemptive efficacy in the blood of Christ, and therefore of Christians, exists, albeit in a merely superstitious sense and, we would almost say, theurgical [In the aforementioned book by Roccadadria (popular book but written on rabbinic sources) this is exhaustively explained in the chapters. XVI and XVIII (pp. 199 ss., especially from 213). After all, the fact is indisputable that, from ancient times, Judaism is divided into sects, some of which differ greatly from each other]. No contradiction between the feeling of hatred of the Jews against Christ and his followers, and the superstition of believing in the efficacy of Christian blood, and therefore the use of this. In fact, not only is there no material antithesis except if it is hatred in the first case, it's certainly not about … love in the second; but above all it is clear that the aforementioned superstition is not common to the Jewish mass, and therefore there is a difference in environment between killing hatred and killing superstition.
It is enough to remember the one that dates back to the times of protohistory, when to drink the blood of a valiant slain enemy, it was believed to be a sure means of instilling that value in the winner. Even today, among the Eskimos, eating the liver of the murdered person saves the murderer from the avenging shadow of the victim. Now it is no less well known what a mass of unhealthy and hateful superstitions the Talmudic life of the Jews is full of.
This is due to the "ritualism" of the discussed crime. As for being this, or not, a "Jewish" crime, it is clear that just as a crime committed by an Israelite individual on his own behalf could not be called such, as they commonly say, of his head; – thus any crime committed by Jews can be called "Jewish"., one way or another, – directly or indirectly as long as it is effective – is inspired by the spirit not only of official teaching, but from the entire life lived religiously and socially by the Talmudic people.
Given these premises, we give the list of the most well-known "ritual crimes" attributed to the Jews over the centuries, as they appear from the chroniclers, dai pro­cessi, ecc. of time [Roccadadria, pp. 225-36, who cites the sources of the list, including the book published in Italian translation: II sangue cristiano nei riti ebraici della moderna sinagoga (Prato, Jackets, 1883). We reproduce the notes from that list with the relative citations of the sources as found there (save some citation precision, nomi, ecc. made by us current pen), since for us it is not a question of narrating or proving individual cases of true or believed "ritual crime", sufficing our assumption to discuss the matter as a whole. From the above list we only cite data from the Middle Ages onwards, of those facts that present a ritual type, and not others. In the previous volume we saw the massacres and crucifixions inflicted by the Jews on the Christians of Byzantine Palestine during the Persian incursions or local uprisings. The said list begins with the year 425: ad Imm, between Aleppo and Antioch, a Christian child is crucified by the Jews (Baron, Ann., ad an., n. 49)].
List. 1071. In Blois (France) a Christian child is crucified by the Jews and thrown into the river: trial and conviction of the guilty (M. Q. H., VILI Scr. VI, p. 520); 1114. A Norwich (England) William, a twelve-year-old boy, is lured into a Jewish home, and completely bled out (Bolland., vol. III of March, p. 588; e M. G. H., ib.); 1160. A Glocester (England), the Jews crucify a child (ib.); 1179. The boy Riccardo is sacrificed, on Holy Thursday, in the castle of Pontoise; process and recognition of martyrdom; Richard honored as a saint in Paris (Bolland., ib., p. 591); 1181. In this city the boy Rodberto is sacrificed by the Jews during the Easter holidays ; segue il processo ed il riconoscimento del martirio (Morning, H. E., anno 1181; Boll. 25 March, p. 589); 1225. In Munich, a woman sells a child to the Jews who kill him by bleeding him (Michelbeck., business. Freising., II, p. 94); 1235, 1.° December. Ad Erfurt (Germany) ritual killing of a child (Sports, p. 66). A Norwich, for the Easter holidays, the Jews steal a child to crucify him (Huiltard-Bréholles, Great Chronicle, III, 86); 1236. Near Hagenau (Alsace) three seven-year-old children sacrificed by the Jews (Richey, Senonen's exploits. in M. G. H., Scr. XXV, p. 324); 1339. Ritual murder committed by Jews in London (Matthew Paris. Chron. Maj., IV, 433); 1244. In the same city a Christian boy martyred by the Jews, and venerated as a saint in the church of San Paolo (Baron., An. 1244, n. 42). 1250. In Aragon (Spain) a seven-year-old boy crucified during the Jewish Passover (Joh. Of Lent, Of pseudo-Messiahs, p. 33). – In Zaragoza (Spain) crucifixion of the boy Domenico de Val, recognized as a martyr (Blancas Araz. Comment.). – Around the same year in Orsona of Castile (Spain) a rabbi lures a Christian boy into his house and kills him (Sports, 68); 1255. A Lincoln (England) the boy Ugo stolen by the Jews, he is nourished until the day of the Paschal sacrifice: then he is crucified in the presence of many Jews who came from various parts of England (Bolland, vol. VI of July, p. 494); 1257. Christian child sacrificed in London (Clover Epitome hist. p. 541); 1260. A Weissenburg (Germany) child killed by Jews (Ann. Colmar, in M. G. H., Scr. XVII, p. 1914); 1261. A Pfortzheim (Baden) seven-year-old girl strangled, bled and then thrown into the water by the Jews (Bolland., vol. VI of April, p. 838).
He continues. 1279. A Northampton (England) crucifixion of a Christian child (Sports, p. 67). – 2 April: in London another ritual crime; trial and punishment of the guilty (Florentius Worcesterien. Chron., p. 222); 1282. In Munich the Jews buy a child and ritually kill him (Rader, Holy Bavaria, II, p. 315); 1283. In Mainz (Germany), a child sold by his nurse to the Jews and sacrificed (Colmar Act, in M. G. H., Scr. XVII, 210; Baron. n. 61); 1285. In Munich, a Christian child was bled to make that blood a remedy for the Jews; the crime was discovered, riot of the people who burn the house where the Jews had taken refuge (Rader, Bav. Sacra. II, p. 331: M. G. H., Scr. XVII, 415); 1286. A Oberwesel sul Reno, the boy Guarniero (Werner) fourteen year old martyred for three days with repeated incisions (Bolland., vol. 2nd of April, p. 697; M. G. H., Scr. XVII, 77; Baron. a. 1287, n. 18); 1287. And Bern, the young Rodolfo killed by the Jews for Easter (Bolland., vol. 2nd of April); 1292. A Colmar (Alsace) same fate as a child (Ann. Colmar., II, 30); 1293. A Krems (Lower Austria) child sent to the Jews of Brünn to be sacrificed, how it happens; trial and punishment of some criminals; others save themselves with money (M. G. H., Scr. XI, 658); 1294. In Bern another sacrifice of a Christian child (Ann. Colm., II, 32); 1302. A Remken (Germany) idem (Ann. Colm., II, 39); 1303. At Weissensee in Thuringia (Germany) Corrado, son of a soldier, bled by the Jews with cuts in his veins (Baron., Ann., n. 64); 1320. A Prey killing of an attendant in the cathedral choir, killed by a Jew (Sports, p. 72); 1321. Ad Annecy (Savoy) killing of a young cleric: expulsion of the Jews (Dionysius from St. Martino, Gallia christ., II, p. 723); 1325. The Plague (Bohemia) ritual killing of a Christian (Barons, Ann., n. 15); 1331. To Ueberlingen (Germany) child killed and then thrown into a well (John. Vitodurani, Chron.); 1345. In Munich the boy Eric was cruelly martyred; venerated by the Church as Blessed (Rader, o. c., p. 351); 1380. In Agenbach in Swabia (Germany) Jews caught in the act of sacrificing a child stolen from his parents (Mart. Cross Ann. Hover., Part III, libro V); 1401. A Diessenhofen in Württemberg, four-year-old boy bought for three florins and bled by the Jews. Trial and declaration of the confessed criminal: every seven years the Jews need Christian blood; another declared that the person being sacrificed must have been less than thirteen years old; a third who used that blood for Easter, partially drying it to reduce it to powder to be used for religious uses (Jewish question, pp. 59-60); 1407. Here another child was killed: popular uprising and expulsion of the Jews (ib.); 1410 In Thuringia (Germany) expulsion of the Jews for similar crimes against Christian children (Baron., Ann., n. 31).
Still. 1429. A Ravensburg (Germany) Ludovico di Bruck, Christian youth, sacrificed by the Jews while serving at table in the time between Easter and Pentecost; the martyr's body is found and venerated by Christians (Baron., Ann., n. 31; Bolland., Oh. III of April, p. 978); 1453. In Wroclaw (Slesia) stolen child, fattened and killed by the Jews (Sports, p. 76); 1454. In Castile (Spain) a Christian child torn to pieces and his heart cooked for food [Or for medicine? Note from Mons. Benign]. This and other facts contributed to the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1459 (Simone Habiki, cit. don't open); 1457. In Turin a Jew is caught in the act of slaughtering a Christian child (ib.); 1462. Presso Innsbruck (Tyrol) the boy Andrea (later venerated as Blessed) nato did, he is bled dry by the Jews (Bolland., Oh. III of July, p. 462); 1468. In Sepulveda in Old Castile, Rabbi Salomon Pecho, on Good Friday, he has a Christian woman crucified (Colmohares, Hist. from Segovia); 1475. In Trento the famous martyrdom of Blessed Simoncino; process for which the original relationship exists [Important extracts can be seen in the same op. of Roccadadria, pag. 213 e ss.], from which it appears that the Jews of Trento guilty of that murder revealed many others committed by them and their co-religionists, for ritual purposes, in various parts of Italy (especially Lombardy and Veneto), Germany, Poland, ecc.; 1480. In Treviso, a crime similar to that of Trento (Baron., Ann. p. 569). – A child sacrificed in Motta di Venezia, on Good Friday (Bolland., vol. 2nd of April); 1485. In Marostica (Vicenza) the blessed Lorenzo murdered by the Jews on Good Friday 5 April [Probably to draw blood. Note from Mons. Benign]; 1486. In Regensburg, six children were victims of the Jews (Rader, op. cit., III, 174); 1490. A Guardia near Toledo (Spain) a crucified child (Bolland., vol. 1st of April, 3); 1494. A Tyrman (Hungary) child stolen and bled to death (Bolland., vol. 2nd of April, 838); 1502. A Walskirch (Alsace) a four year old boy, sold by his father to the Jews for ten florins with the agreement that he would be returned alive after drawing blood, but the Jews bled him so much that he died (Bolland., vol. II d’apr. 830). [Note from Mons. Benign. This fact is suggestive. The Jews had intention, probably, to kill him as they did, even regardless of the determinant of their hatred. If it was about using that blood for spell, sacrifice, magical medicine, ecc., that blood had no value other than a "sacrifice", according to one of the fundamental principles of occultism. Comparing the above words (cit. in Chwolson, n. 8): «… may the blood of an innocent Christian child be killed, serve you for eternal life»]; 1505. A Budweis (Bohemia) similar thing (Lifted, Writers, I, 138).
Conclusion of the list. 1510. Jews confess to having tortured seven Christian children with needles (Baron. Ann. n. 41); 1520. From Tyrnavia (Nagy-Szombta in Ungheria) and in Biring two children bled to death; expulsion of the Jews from Hungary (Bolland. vol. 2nd of April, 839); 1540. A Sappenfeld (Bavaria), the four-year-old Michele tortured by the Jews for three days (Rader., o. c., II 331; III, 179); 1547. A Rave (Poland) the son of a tailor sacrificed by two Jews (Simone Habiki. c.); 1569. A Witow (Witowice? Witoslaw?) in Poland the two-year-old Giovanni sold for two marks to the Jew Giacomo of Leizyka, he is cruelly killed: similar events in Poland, and Bielko e altrove (id.); 1574. And Punia (Lithuania) the seven-year-old Elizabeth murdered by the Jew Gioacchino Smierlowicz on Passion Tuesday; his blood is collected in a vase (id.); 1575. The child Michele de Jacobi killed; the Jews escape punishment (Sports, 83); 1590. And Szydlon (Poland) the body of a missing child is found, bled to death with incisions and puncture wounds (id.); 1592. And Vilna (Lithuania) the seven-year-old Simone killed with more than 170 stings: venerated as a saint (Bolland., III vol. of July); 1595. Augustine as a child sold to the Jews to be bled (ib.); 1597. At Srilow, killed child whose blood the Jews sprinkled the new synagogue to consecrate it (ib.); 1598, 25 March. In Podlag the four-year-old Alberto was stolen and killed by the Jews (Boll., 835); 1650, 11 March. A Caaden, Mattia Tillich by 5 and a half years is murdered (Tentzel, Jan. 1694: he cites other similar events that occurred in Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, ecc.); 1655. A Tunguch (Germany), murdered child (id., June 1693); 1669. To Metz (Lorraine), a three-year-old boy stolen by the Jew Raffaele Levi and cruelly murdered: the horribly mutilated body was found: process in 1670; by sentence of the parliament of Metz the culprit was burned alive on 16 June 1670 (Fr. X. the Feller, Journal histor. and letters. written by 1774 al 1794; ad an. 1788, n. 428); 1720. A Jew steals a child; ma, afterwards, he is forced to release him (Zachary., Life of the b. Andrea of ​​Rinn, iv.); 1730. In Meppen near Merano (Tyrol) a child is found killed, of which crime public opinion accuses the Jews (Diss. Ap., 3-4); 1764, 19 June. Disappearance of the little boy Giovanni Balla; his corpse is found with the traditional signs of ritual killing. («A Hungarian MP:» Tisza Eszlar, p. 108); 1775. In Poland the Jews are accused of having renewed the ritual crime (Feller, o. c., 18 gen. 1778); 1778 circa. Feller himself recalls a similar event that occurred then in Torn near Liège [Must be Thorn from Limburg (When): note from Mgr. Benign]; 1791. A Tasnad (Transylvania) ritual killing of Andrea Takals (Sports, 180); Around this time there is memory of similar killings in Holleschau (Moravia) e Woplawicz (id., 88).
We refrain from here reporting other facts that occurred in the century. XIX [Register in the o. c., pp. 233-5; for the century. XX the Beylis trial, In the 1913, it was such that it evidently resulted in suffocation with money and threats, whatever the material criminality of the fact]. The list has been reported by us as it traditionally exists and, of course, with the benefit of the inventory.
This is the exposition of the nature and history of ritual crime, without which it is easy to misunderstand in this matter. Let's get to his criticism.
It is enough for us to make these fundamental observations: 1.° That the life lived by Judaism, governed by the letter and spirit of Talmud, breathed an air of implacable hatred against Christians, it would be absurd to deny it. Ourselves, along the centuries traveled so far, we have recorded exhaustive evidence of this. This mortal struggle has never ceased since the days when Calvary was still stained with divine blood, and the apostle James and the deacon Stephen had already paid theirs, and then for the centuries until today. La forma afterwards, must have changed through the ages; but if the James Darmstetters poison with the pen and not with the drug like the medieval Zedekians, the hatred and the absolute lack of scruples in expressing it are the same. What a wonder then especially in times of greater rudeness and ferocity, due especially to certain more fanatical Jewish sects, religious crime with a more or less ritual form, happened repeatedly? 2. Let's effortlessly put that among the many crimes reported, many are unproven, indeed unlikely at least in the material sense, that is, they can never be materially or judicially proven; ma, on the other side, it is possible to seriously and honestly state that each and every one of those facts whose recording begins historically from 425 and reaches up to our times, they are all fake? Many of those gave rise to regular trials; all trials en masse deserve the reader's disbelief? Appella the Jew believes this, Horace would have said. In that long list there are characteristic facts that have every aspect of reality: like that of 1502 in which the money-hungry father wants to sell some blood, but not life, of the son; and the rabbi (even though he didn't want to kill him) miserly with money given and blood bought, it extracts so much that the victim dies.
The very tactics of Jewish defense have felt the crushing weight of that mountain of facts which have accumulated for sixteen centuries; therefore he turns to diversionary skirmishes. One of these, attempted at the time of the Beylis trial, has deserved the honor of historical studies; and we too will deal with it briefly here because the question falls within the social policy of the Popes. «Come! exclaimed Israel's lawyers, as can be admittedtwas the ritual crime, while this was repeatedly denied by popes such as Innocent IV, Gregorio X, Martino V, Nicholas V, Sixtus IV, Paul III and Clement XIV?».
The reality is very simple and also exempts us from making a preliminary ruling de jure, that is, that, if those Popes had declared not to believe in the existence of religious or even ritual crime by the Jews, their judgment would have as much weight as the reasons that led them to that opinion. In fact it is evident that the matter (that is, the material fact of whether Jews have ever killed Christians out of religious hatred and for ritual purposes) it does not fall within their apostolic ministry, except in one case that was not very favorable for the Jews: when the Popes grant the honor of the altars to some victim of Jewish crime. In short, a Pope speaks as a pontiff when he says: «Let such a person be venerated as a martyr, because he was killed by the Jews out of hatred for the Christian faith»; ma quando egli dicesse di non credere al delitto rituale ebraico, he would speak like a man of worth, in case, as much as his personal science and experience, and his personal criteria. Ma, we repeat it, it is enough for us to note in fact that none of all those Popes denied the Jewish religious crime. And the documentation is exhaustive. Let's follow it quickly on the trail of the aforementioned study by Vernet.
Innocent IV: three or four are the authentic documents of this Pontiff, the first known to have dealt with the ritual crime. First document: his Bull of 28 maggio 1287 to John of Bernin Archbishop of Vienne on the accusation of ritual crime brought against the Jews of Valréas who had complained to him. In the first part of the Bull the Pope exposes the appeal of those Israelites who complained of being, on the occasion of the accusation of having crucified a little girl, oppressed in every way by the bishop of Saint-Paul-Trois-Chàteaux, by the constable of Valence and various nobles of the province. In the second part of the Bull the Pope orders the Archbishop, That, if the things stated by the appellants are not true, prevent the aforementioned gentlemen from oppressing them, compensate them for any wrongs done to them, and leave them peacefully in the respective lands of the said lords; than if the crime were true, he should be punished: «Reluctant (Nos) eos, on the occasion of the premises which, if perhaps they were true, they should not, and could not, remain to some extent incorrect, to be driven by the troubles that followed…» (Reg. Inn. IV, n. 2816, ed. E. Shepherd Paris 1882, I pp. 220-1). Second document: another bill of the same day and for the same destination. Protest against cruelty (stripping, mutilations, emissions) committed on that occasion against the aforementioned Jews: no judgment on the accusation of the little girl's crucifixion (n. 2834, p. 424). Third document, one of the defenders' workhorses. It's the Bubble of 5 July 1247 to the Episcopate of France and Germany. In it the Pope is said to have said that the Jews are falsely accused of eating a Christian child's heart for their Passover: «they impose falsely». But it is a mere game. Those words are the summary of the exposition made by the Jews, it is not the Pope's judgment. He says: the Jews of Germany have sent us a moving plea saying that some are falsely accusing them, ecc.; now he doesn't want injustice: if injustices have been committed against the Jews – « whatever ... you find random attempts» – yes stop, and no longer let them harass each other unjustly. Fourth document of 25 September 1253: «We have decreed that ... no one should reproach them for using human blood in their rites, as it is prescribed for them in the Old Testament – not to mention human blood – to abstain from any blood. As in Fulda and various other places, many Jews were killed because of suspicion of this kind, we formally prohibit by means of these letters that this happens again in the future" (The document is reproduced in M. G. H., VI Ep. s. XIII and reg. pp. rr., II pp. 297-8, Berlin 1887).
The original of this Bull is in the Prague archive and served to the The statutes of the Jews promulgated the 25 March 1254 by Ottokar II, king of Bohemia (cfr. Stern, o. c., n. 212; Strack, o. C., pp. 180, 186). But its authenticity is not certain for the good reason that such an important document is not found in the official records of that Pontiff. And even if it were authentic, it shows Innocent IV not believing that Jews ate Christian flesh and drank Christian blood; and he does not believe this for the simple reason that theOld Testament prohibits Jews from using blood. That opinion is therefore as valid as this reason. In any case he does not believe in a specific purpose of the ritual crime, anthropophagy. He believes that certain gentlemen abuse such accusations to steal the people and property of Jews; and he forbids it. Let us also add that he was not inclined to believe in ritual crimes and the like. But the least that can be said is this: Innocent IV does not declare the Jews innocent, permanently and en masse, from crimes of religious hatred against Christians.
This is all the more true because the Vice-Chancellor of the Holy Church, Marino d'Eboli, was preparing at that time the Formulary, that is, the minutes of letters and other stationery documents, as we saw Bernard Guy do for the Inquisition. This is the reproduction of authentic documents from which the proper names are removed and are preserved as minute plans for similar cases. Now in the Formulary above we find a formula for our case: Against the Jews crucifying the child. And the summary is similar to the thought of Innocent IV in that it does not attribute to this martyrdom the purpose of eating the heart or drinking the blood of the Christian child, but the aim of bringing new injury to Christ in his innocent believer. For Innocent IV the obvious observation must be added that cases of regular and controlled trials such as that of Andrea da Rinn were still lacking (1462) and that of Simoncino from Trento (1475) which also imposed themselves on the systematic doubt of Cardinal Ganganelli, as we will see now.
Gregorio X – with the Bull of 7 October 1272 – establishes that the testimony of Christians against the Jews is not valid if at least one Jew does not bear witness with them. «Because it sometimes happens that Christians lose their children, and that the Jews are accused by their enemies of stealing and killing Christian children, and to use their hearts and their blood for sacrifices; than the fathers of Christian children or other Christians, rivals of the Jews, hide those children so they can accuse the Jews and extort money from them through harassment; and they state very falsely that the Jews stole and killed those children to use their hearts and blood for sacrifices, while their law specifically and expressly forbids them to eat and drink blood, and even eat the flesh of animals that do not have cloven nails. A large number of Jews have several times been seized and imprisoned against justice on similar charges. We decree that Christians, in that case, should not be intended against Jews; that the Jews thus imprisoned under a frivolous pretext be restored to freedom and no longer be captured under that frivolous pretext, unless, which we don't believe, they are caught in flagrante delicto" (Stern, n. 1; Straok, p. 181).
Nice reissue, revised and increased, of the alleged Bull of Innocent IV of which we now spoke. This new document is also not included in the Degesta officials of Gregory; there is a belated summary of it in a letter from the Count of Savoy, 20 July 1329 (the copy of which is in the Turin archives) ed a copy of the XVI sec. ad Innsbruck. But this time the inspiring Jew counted too much on the success of the alleged Bull of Innocent, and he pushed his hand too far, very Israeli digital sign. In fact, how can one believe that a Pope, and a Pope of the Middle Ages, establish this astonishing rule of law: for an accusation against the Jews, the testimony of Christians is not valid but only that of Jews (since this means saying: unless an Israelite joins them): and for the accusation of a crime that can only be organized or carried out in very secret, no arrest will be made until the Jew is caught in the act … No, whoever wrote that document was not the Pope, but a rabbi.
[From numerous notes: Gregory X ordered in 1274 not a bull but a copy of that of his predecessor. And he is most likely playing on that fact, that the forger composed the apocryphal Gregorian Bull with innocent elements such as the quotation ofOld Testament].
Already the so-called Bulls of Innocent IV and Gregory, in a favorable era – due to the difficulty of control – to fake documentaries, he invented his own justification by placing the seal of Saint Peter on it. Of this Israeli effort to make the Pope an impressive defender, by any means as long as it is not honest, we now have the solemn proof given to us by a Pontiff.
Martino V. We are in the midst of a Renaissance, good time for the Jews who were already visibly advancing towards today's world hegemony. There is therefore no longer any need to falsify Bolle; try to extort authentic ones. The Rome that will soon see the conspiracy of the Academy and the Abbreviators and the Borgian simony, it is good ground for the Israelite doctor and astrologer, who seeks someone with greater wealth of influence than scruples, to snatch one from the Pope Judeophile bubble.
The Bubble of 20 February 1422 It is said that the Jews presented their complaints to the Pope because certain preachers taught that it was forbidden to Christians, under penalty of censure, to have relationships with them; because hateful noises were circulating, due to prejudice or malice, accusing the Jews of poisoning the springs in times of mortality and of mixing Christian blood with their unleavened bread; the people, so excited, he maltrattava. Having stated this, Martin V forbids preachers from issuing the aforementioned prohibitions; On the contrary: «We want Christians to treat Jews with humanity and gentleness, and do not offend them in their persons and their goods; that Jews and Catholics can have mutual relations and exchange services". Furthermore, he reconfirmed Jewish privileges and determined their ordinary judges.
As Vernet notes (p. 424), Martin V does not speak of the ritual crime but overall shows that he does not believe in it. We will say that the Bubble is so benevolent (more for the general tone than for the provisions made one by one) towards Israel, does not dare repeat the empty argument of the false Bulls of Innocent IV and Gregory. What makes an impression in the Bull is certainly not the order not to excite the masses against the ghetto and to treat the next circumcised person with Christian charity – all things compliant with Christian morality and therefore worthy of pontifical teaching -, but the tone was too defensive, almost declaring the social innocence of Israel to the point of recommending it, indirectly, the affairs of trade and the Jewish bank.
But everything is explained … da Martino V. With his Bull of 1 February 1423, that is, just a year later, the Pope declares that he is withdrawing the previous Bull because he had ordered and published it while being harassed and circumvented, so that the previous Bull had been extorted from him. And the anti-Semitic impulse of public opinion was such, that the freedom given back to preachers could be abused by some; waves new Jewish pressures and new Bull of 13 February 1429 which prohibits preachers from abusing their preaching against Jews, and the people to mistreat them unjustly: and nothing fairer than that. Il 2 November 1447, Martin V granted his protection to the mistreated Jews; in this document he points out the false accusation that the Jews could not fail to celebrate, and in fact they did not celebrate certain religious holidays without having the liver or heart of a Christian.
It is enough to have calmly considered the aforementioned documents to ascertain the various moral persons who intervene in such vicissitudes. Moon, the synagogue, it shows us the versatile and tenacious pressure on the Holy See to have documents that could serve as its justification, skillfully playing on expressions and arbitrarily transposing papal words regarding facts and occasional questions into absolute and general theses. To have these documents to exploit, the Synagogue uses every means, from the falsification of the Bull of Gregory X to the extortion of that of Martin V. On the other hand, the Church, always mindful of the charity and forgiveness taught by Christ, try to calm the exacerbated spirits, and takes it willingly, for this purpose, particular points to deny: typical example, among many, that of Martin V which denies the specific accusation: that the liver or heart of a Christian is necessary for the official rite of certain Jewish holidays – statement that, post like this, it is evidently false and anodyne for the fundamental question of the Jewish crime. In between these two the person of the drama the naivety of some moves, the cunning of others, third party opportunism, beyond – and they are not to be taken for a ride – certain political-economic moments in which a regime and those who impersonate it find themselves entangled, moments that require acts of political prudence.
[From numerous notes: Only as a historical parallel to better understand the ancient facts with today's facts, we remember the coup carried out by Jewish notables in 1913 on the occasion of the Beylis trial. The Jewish leaders asked the Holy See with great formality whether the well-known Bull of Innocent IV and the report of Cardinal Ganganelli which we will now discuss were authentic.. The Holy See responded – for the Innocent Bull, leaving it to the judgment of competent historians, – and for the Ganganelli report, That, consulted the archive, the authenticity of that had been verified. The Holy See's textual response was published by the press of that time; so there is no doubt about the scope of the pontifical document. It is clear that it did not enter into the question of ritual crime at all: even if the Innocent Bull were true, that (we saw it) it does not resolve the question for the past and much less for the future, that is, for trials such as those of the blessed Andrea da Rinn and Simoncino da Trento; and as for the Ganganelli report, it is the exposition of the personal judgment of a cardinal (and not of a pope) that denying that many ritual crimes are proven, it suited the historical reality of those of the two aforementioned Blesseds. Well, that response from the Holy See was immediately exploited by those involved to flaunt it as a new confirmation (sic) of the absolute denial of the existence of ritual crime by the Holy See. And that was the campaign, to make good Catholics fall there, incorrigible in their part of dupes. A good Catholic newspaper from Paris (forgive us this other detail, but it gives the exact measure of the success of many Jewish campaigns), published a dithyrambic article which concluded that Israel should have undying gratitude for Pius. That's right. And who knows how many good readers of the good newspaper will have candidly accepted its point of view. Such a fact, accomplished before our eyes, makes us understand well what may have happened around the above-described Bulls, apocryphal or authentic, from Innocent IV to Martin V: the insistent Jewish cunning, certain personal and environmental weaknesses and a certain candid optimism in the Catholic world are fixed phenomena like certain characters in the classic comedy who change names and clothes, according to the various comedies, but their type, the dramatic persona, always remains the same].
And now comes the question of the ritual crime of which the already mentioned Blessed Simoncino da Trento was the victim. Sixtus IV intervened repeatedly in this matter, with Letters from 10 October 1475. He suspends the cult already given to the child martyr «by the Jews, as it is said, killed" Why, in his opinion, nothing had yet been definitively established in this regard: the Pope would pronounce himself after the report of the commissioner he sent to Trento. After the trial carried out by Giovanni Hinterbach, Bishop of Trentino, conclusive for the ritual crime, the papal commissioner instituted a second trial, concluding that the chancellery of the bishop's court had committed forgeries. Lively agitation against this declaration in which public opinion must have seen the thirty denarii. Then the Pope ordered a third trial in Rome after which he purged with a declaration of 20 June 1478, the episcopal trial from the commissioner's slander, declaring that process «properly and properly done»: but he still did not approve the cult of the blessed Simoncino. Paolo III, favorable (like other Popes of the Renaissance) to the Jews, published the Bull of 12 maggio 1540 where he declared he had learned with regret, from an appeal by the Jews of Hungary, Bohemia and Poland, that these were victims of fanatical or greedy enemies for their property, who accused them of enormous crimes and especially ritual ones.
But the Trentino martyr's claim prevailed over all the diversions devised by the Synagogue; and in 1584 it was published, by order of Gregory XIII, il Roman Martyrology (controlled by the very competent Baronio) where we read at 24 March: «of Trent, the passion of Saint Simeon, the boy most cruelly slaughtered by the Jews, who afterwards shone with many miracles». Thus the same attempts to stifle the Trent process confirm the historical solidity of the fact sanctioned by Rome. With the Bull of 8 June 1588, Sixtus V ratified for the city and diocese of Trento, the cult paid to Blessed Simon following the request of the Trentino clergy who had recalled how Simon had been martyred by the Jews in the well-known form of mockery of the Crucifix.
As for b. Simone, the Roman Church claimed the martyrdom of b. Andrea da Rinn. Benedict XIV confirmed his cult for the diocese of Bressanone (office and mass, il 15 dec. 1753; plenary indulgence for visitors to the relics on the day of the feast, 13 gen. 1754). – And as in his «Of the servants of God beatif., etc.» had already admitted the reality of the crimes perpetrated by the Jews in hatred of Christ and the Christian faith [O. c. book I, XIV, 4; III, V, 6; IV, part 2.a, XVIII, 16; ed. Prato 1839-41, t. I, p. 84, III, 132, IV, 575 (note by Vernet)], – so in his Bull on the martyr of Rinn («Blessed Andrew», 22 feb. 1755) that Pope, both erudite and little given to so-called fanaticism, openly declares that he considers the facts historical «about some boy, greater week, He was killed by the Hebrews for insulting Christ ; for such are bb. of Simon and Andrew, nor nearly of many of those whom the authors mention, killing of children» (Butler, t. IV. p. 114).
And here we come to Cardinal Ganganelli, future Clement XIV. In the 1756 the Jews of Poland, accused of a ritual crime and therefore beaten, they asked Benedict XIV to carry out their trial. The Pope referred the matter to the S. Officio; and the Jews were fortunate enough to have Cardinal Ganganelli as their speaker, a man who was very alien to the aforementioned "fanaticism". In fact the cardinal rapporteur presented the 21 March 1758 to the court of S. I officiate a report in which all the ritual crimes attributed up to that time to the Jews, he believed only those of Rinn and Trento to be true, whose victims were killed "out of hatred for the Christian faith". The original exists in the archive of the S. Officio [Very curious episode of this relationship, in itself secret like all the papers of the S. Office: no copy had ever been found, until the Jew Dr. Berliner found it… in the Jewish community of Rome. Then Stern found a copy among the Jews of Mantua, and the attached documents he found among the Jews of Verona. Evidently they had managed to obtain a copy from some employee in Cardinal Ganganelli's service]. The sentence of the S. Site, 24 set. o dec. 1759, juridically adopted the conclusion of the cardinal rapporteur. So that historical moment of age-old controversy, about which the Jewish defense made so much fuss 1913, has one point out of dispute: even Benedict XIV and Cardinal Ganganelli believed the martyrdom of the blessed of Rinn and Trento to be historic.
Clement XIII twice showed himself to be against the belief of Christian blood mixed in the dough of unleavened bread (9 February 1760 e 21 March 1763). Pius VII, il 24 nov. 1803, confirmed a Decree of the S. Congregation of Rites granting to the Church of Zaragoza the office and mass of the child martyred by the Jews, Dominguito de Val, mentioned above. Il 12 maggio 1807 confirmed its cult, approving "lessons" specific to the office of the Blessed, in which it is said that the seven-year-old Domenico, In the 1250, he was killed by the Jews out of hatred for the faith, crucifying him to a wall with nails and piercing him with a spear. Il 7 ag. 1807, new Bull to raise the liturgical level of the feast of B. Domenico. The same Pontiff authorized the cult of the boy Cristoforo della Guardia (see the above list) martyred by the Jews with the tortures of the Passion, as narrated in his "office" included in the breviary of the Trinitarian Order. The Pope authorized an "office" specifically for the diocese of Toledo, to which Guardia belonged. In the 1867, under Pius IX, la S. Congress. of the Rites authorized the cult of b. Lorenzino of Marostica in the diocese of Vicenza martyred on Good Friday 5 April 1485 (see the list). Such is the series of pontifical Acts surrounding the Jewish crime. It would be both insane and reprehensible to deny these clear conclusive deductions.
1. La S. Site, as such, he never made a statement absolutely denying the fact of ritual crime in any sense. The same documents that reject the ritual crime in the specific case of the use of the blood or viscera of a Christian, they do it from a special point of view, that is, or for the abstract reason that the Mosaic law prohibits the use of blood (the only logical conclusion is therefore: if the Jews used it, they would be acting against the Mosaic law), or denying that the Jews cannot do without that blood or entrails for some of their celebrations, and that they really don't do without it.
2. Repeatedly, solemnly, la S. Sede recognized the historical reality of the implicitly ritual crime, that is, the murder of a Christian child on the occasion of Holy Week, the repetition of the torments of the Passion of Christ on the body of the child, ecc., due to "some Jews", without the entire Jewish community being accused of the crime, which ordinarily is content to bleed the purse of Christians, and organize underhand and even blatantly apply the so-called revolutionary massacres against Christians, – which was masterfully summarized by the "clairvoyant" Pius V in the bull «The nation of the Hebrews" of the 26 feb. 1569: «We have sufficiently learned and explored how unworthy the name of Christ these perverse generations are (of the Jews) bear; how offensive it is to all who are considered by this name; with which, finally, the tricks of their lives will be laid in wait» (M. Bull. Rom. 2.a ed., Lyon 167, t. II, p. 277, quote. by Vernet). And this mentality and opinion of papal Rome will appear to every honest and competent scholar as the verdict of history.
Conclusion
And of the fully ritual crime – use of Christian blood or viscera – what is left for the story? It would be dear to us, for the honor of humanity, being able to positively deny it; but in contrast there are two serious facts. One is the age-old accusation of Christian opinion. It is easy to say that even the first Christians were accused by the pagans of human sacrifice, ecc. Furthermore, that absurd accusation is very well explained by a misrepresentation (ridiculous for us, easy for those pagans) of Christian language around the sacrifice of the Mass, the fundamental criterion is that in such questions pure and simple material analogy cannot apply. Each case is self-evident. And our case spans the most diverse centuries and reaches the present day with the report of the Count of Durfort-Civrac to the French Consul, In the 1826, sui facti di Lattakieh, with the Damascus trial of 1839, ecc. All, all false in the ritual sense that interests us? Let's hope so; we cannot assert it. Meanwhile we note that the argument of the prohibition of blood, made by, it would not be valid to conclude the fact of our question; Talmudic superstition has too much changed and added to the ceremonial (in the broad sense of the word) Jewish, to be able to make the argument count.
The second fact that would explain the use of blood and viscera at least for extraritual purposes, it is offered to us by certain data that are also overshadowed in the very rapid and incomplete list that we have transcribed above. For example, the accusation of 1285 of the child bled to death by the Jews of Munich to make a "remedy", it makes you think of ancient superstitious medicine (right from protohistory we find the sorcerer who is a doctor) which came from the barbarian East to the Greco-Roman world. Some "remedies" (as for leprosy which can be cured with a bath of human blood) reach the centuries of full classical civilization: the false legend of the Roman baptism of Constantine the Great tells us that he, suffering from leprosy, bathed in innocent blood in vain, because God had prepared his recovery with the baptism of Pope Sylvester. If this legend is very false in itself, it shows us that even after Constantine people believed in the medical cure of blood baths.
Medieval Jews inherited Eastern medicine and its daughter Greco-Roman; they were the most renowned doctors of the Middle Ages as they were also the professionals of astrology, of alchemy, of occultism, who loves human blood. Magical recipes based on this abounded for invoices, divinations, discoveries of the mysteries of nature, ecc…
What a wonder, after that, than of the Jewish sorcerer-doctors, that is, medical astrologers-alchemists, they used human blood for their tregences? We would not be surprised if history showed us some Christians, criminal madman, that he had committed such an enormity then. If this were more frequent among Jews, this could be explained precisely by their specialization in those "arts"; and then we would understand the reality divorced from the legend; and the analogy of the pagan accusation against Christians would be appropriate here, since the analogy in this case would be not only material but moral. Like the pagans hearing confusedly, and grossly misunderstanding, the Christian phrasebook of the "sacrifice" of Golgotha ​​repeated in the Mass, and of the Eucharistic "food" and "drink"., they believed in ritual crime and Christian anthropophagy, thus the repeated occurrence of blood extracted by Jews from Christian children (there is in the cases mentioned in the list, even a Christian father who sells his son's blood to the Jews, as long as they make it alive for him), came to the attention of the masses, it was interpreted by the latter as a ritual crime in the known sense, while it was in another. Especially since the choice of Christian children to bleed was natural for the Jews, who as they did not want to sacrifice theirs, so they did it all the more willingly with the children of abhorred Christians.
Note well that this hypothesis, justifiable by the absolute and comparative environment, it would serve to give a less hateful explanation for the use of Christian blood on behalf of the Jews, I use that – we repeat it – it would be absolutely difficult to deny after so many accusations made clear over the centuries, various in meaning (sometimes the purpose of the "remedy" is confessed, other times the direct accusation of the rite is made) but all converging on the material fact of the Jewish use of Christian blood. Here are the reasons that prohibit us from believing that the agonizing question of strictly ritual crime has been absolutely exhausted in a negative sense..
Mons. Umberto Benigni (Piano membership), anastatic copy of «Social History of the Church» 5/7, ed. C.L.S., Verrua Savoy, 2018, volume IV, tomo 1, from the page 369 to the page 387. Rest in peace…