Blood Libel

[anamchara]

So . . . whaddya think?  Were Little St. Hugh of Lincoln and St. Simon of Trent really murdered by a sect of radical Ashkenazim, or is the whole thing a myth?

[T]he charge of drinking the blood of children at Passover has been leveled against the Jews consistently for several millenia;  also Ariel Toaff, himself a Jew, professor of Medieval and Renaissance History at the Bar-Ilan University (second-largest in Israel), and son of a former Chief Rabbi, wrote a very involved work examining the case of St. Simon of Trent and argued that certain fringe (very fringe) elements in Ashkenazi Judaism may have practiced a passover of blood at various points in history, this work being found here: http://www.bloodpassover.com/  

It's interesting, isn't it, that when Christians entertain the possibility fringe elements among the Jews perpetrated lurid atrocities against Christians here and there, that's called a blood libel; whereas we're all supposed to believe--at the risk of being called racists, anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers--that  Christians have routinely massacred millions of Jews throughout history?  Funny how that works. 

Well when you have a heretical Pope going around apologizing for everything the Church has ever done that'll happen.

 

The phenomenon preceded the "heretical" pope. 

[mike6240]

I think I found where the shrine used to be located in Trent, Italy.  This from a tourist website (ignore the anti-Catholic bias of the author):

"My favourite thing about Trento is the free tour.  It happens on Saturdays at 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. and is multilingual.
One of the first things you get to see on the tour (no matter how many times you take it) is the Palazzo Salvadori, a Renaissance-style palace built in the early 1500s by the Lombard artist Lucio di Pietro.
What you find out though is that it sits where the Jewish synagogue from the middle ages once was.There are two oval medallions above the doors, sculpted by Francesco Oradini. They tell a poignant tale of how a boy was found "drowned" in the river but, upon inspection, he was believed to have been strangled.
The Jews were falsely blamed (as they seem to be for most things) and the Catholics did nothing to stem that victimization (as our guide was wont to point out) and so today these two plaques depict Simonino's martrydom and glory. The victimization was officially recanted in 1965.
A rough translation (and here I am indebted to fellow VT member tapis volant) goes as follows: "In the depths of these buildings where once there was a synagogue now a small shrine has been constructed. The blessed matyr, three toothed Simon, 29 months old,was murdered by utmost torture by the Jews on the 23rd March 1475 in the dead of night."

[Baskerville]

Why do the Jews think that this is not even a possibility?

Because their Jews and they think they are above suspicion of anything.

[Vetus Ordo]

Why do the Jews think that this is not even a possibility?

Because their Jews and they think they are above suspicion of anything.

Ditto.

[voxpopulisuxx]

By Akiva Eldar, Haaretz – 17 Nov 2009
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1128767.html

Right-wing spokesmen, including some elected officials, rushed to place Yaakov “Jack” Teitel in the fringe group alongside Yigal Amir, Eden Natan Zada, Eliran Golan, Asher Weisgan, Danny Tikman and a few other “political/ideological” murderers.

True, they acknowledge, there are among us several lunatic rabbis who agitate to violence. Really, just a handful; even a toddler could count them.

The more stringent will note that unlike the Hamas government, our government does not pay the salaries of rabbis who advocate the killing of babies.

Is that so? Not really.

For example, government ministries regularly transfer support and funding to a yeshiva whose rabbi determined that it is permissible to kill gentile babies “because their presence assists murder, and there is reason to harm children if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us … it is permissible to harm the children of a leader in order to stop him from acting evilly … we have seen in the Halakha that even babies of gentiles who do not violate the seven Noahide laws, there is cause to kill them because of the future threat that will be caused if they are raised to be wicked people like their parents.”

Lior Yavne, who oversees research at the Yesh Din human rights organization, checked and found that in 2006-2007, the Ministry of Education department of Torah institutions transferred over a million shekels to the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in Yitzhar.

The Ministry of Social Affairs has allocated over 150,000 shekels to the yeshiva since 2007, scholarships for students with financial difficulties studying there. And what can they learn with the help of public funding from the head of the yeshiva, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira? According to selected items published last week in the media, the boys can learn that Teitel is not only innocent, but also a real saint.

Their spiritual leader stated in his book, “Torat Hamelekh” that “a national decision is not necessary in order to permit the shedding of blood of an evil kingdom. Even individuals from the afflicted kingdom can attack them.”

A brochure distributed in Judean and Samarian communities stated that “needless to say that nowhere in the book does it state that these remarks are aimed only at gentiles in ancient times.”

The commandments in the book do not suffice only with gentiles; you can also find in them approval to attack leftist professors: every citizen in the kingdom opposing us who encourages the fighters or expresses satisfaction with their actions is considered a pursuer and his killing is permissible,” wrote the rabbi and adds, “and also considered a pursuer is someone whose remarks weaken our kingdom or have a similar effect.”

Not long ago, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman announced that he would ask European Union countries to halt their support for the Breaking the Silence organization because he was displeased with their publications.

The minister surely has reservations about the rabbi’s publications.

He is invited to approach his colleagues at the Ministry of Education and at the Ministry of Social Affairs.

[John92]

By Akiva Eldar, Haaretz – 17 Nov 2009
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1128767.html

Right-wing spokesmen, including some elected officials, rushed to place Yaakov “Jack” Teitel in the fringe group alongside Yigal Amir, Eden Natan Zada, Eliran Golan, Asher Weisgan, Danny Tikman and a few other “political/ideological” murderers.

True, they acknowledge, there are among us several lunatic rabbis who agitate to violence. Really, just a handful; even a toddler could count them.

The more stringent will note that unlike the Hamas government, our government does not pay the salaries of rabbis who advocate the killing of babies.

Is that so? Not really.

For example, government ministries regularly transfer support and funding to a yeshiva whose rabbi determined that it is permissible to kill gentile babies “because their presence assists murder, and there is reason to harm children if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us … it is permissible to harm the children of a leader in order to stop him from acting evilly … we have seen in the Halakha that even babies of gentiles who do not violate the seven Noahide laws, there is cause to kill them because of the future threat that will be caused if they are raised to be wicked people like their parents.”

Lior Yavne, who oversees research at the Yesh Din human rights organization, checked and found that in 2006-2007, the Ministry of Education department of Torah institutions transferred over a million shekels to the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in Yitzhar.

The Ministry of Social Affairs has allocated over 150,000 shekels to the yeshiva since 2007, scholarships for students with financial difficulties studying there. And what can they learn with the help of public funding from the head of the yeshiva, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira? According to selected items published last week in the media, the boys can learn that Teitel is not only innocent, but also a real saint.

Their spiritual leader stated in his book, “Torat Hamelekh” that “a national decision is not necessary in order to permit the shedding of blood of an evil kingdom. Even individuals from the afflicted kingdom can attack them.”

A brochure distributed in Judean and Samarian communities stated that “needless to say that nowhere in the book does it state that these remarks are aimed only at gentiles in ancient times.”

The commandments in the book do not suffice only with gentiles; you can also find in them approval to attack leftist professors: every citizen in the kingdom opposing us who encourages the fighters or expresses satisfaction with their actions is considered a pursuer and his killing is permissible,” wrote the rabbi and adds, “and also considered a pursuer is someone whose remarks weaken our kingdom or have a similar effect.”

Not long ago, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman announced that he would ask European Union countries to halt their support for the Breaking the Silence organization because he was displeased with their publications.

The minister surely has reservations about the rabbi’s publications.

He is invited to approach his colleagues at the Ministry of Education and at the Ministry of Social Affairs.

"You Catholics are so intolerant and violent!" 

Every time I think to myself "you know the Pharisees aren't *too* different from us, at least they worship God!" I find something like this that puts my ideas back in the right place.

To think that so many "Christians" support these monsters.  To think that our own government, and our tax-dollars, support these monsters.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, take pity on us.

[SaintSebastian]

Just as there are deranged individuals today that kidnap and brutally murder children, I'm sure it happened back then too. I'm sure Jews and Christians alike were found amongst these lots, just as today such individuals are found amongst every race and creed. It bears pointing out, however, that Pope Bl. Gregory X forbade Christians from asserting such claims against Jews unless they were caught in the act:

Since it happens occasionally that some Christians lose their children, the Jews are accused by their enemies of secretly carrying off and killing these same Christian children and of making sacrifices of the heart and blood of these very children. It happens, too, that the parents of these very children, or some other Christian enemies of these Jews, secretly hide these very children in order that they may be able to injure these Jews, and in order that they may be able to extort from them a certain amount of money by redeeming them from their straits. [Following the lead of Innocent IV, 1247, Gregory attacks the ritual murder charge at length.]

And most falsely do these Christians claim that the Jews have secretly and furtively carried away these children and killed them, and that the Jews offer sacrifices from the heart and the blood of these children, since their law in this matter precisely and expressly forbids Jews to sacrifice, eat, or drink the blood, or to eat the flesh of animals having claws. This has been demonstrated many times at our court by Jews converted to the Christian faith: nevertheless very many Jews are often seized and detained unjustly because of this.

We decree, therefore, that Christians need not be obeyed against Jews in a case or situation of this type, and we order that Jews seized under such a silly pretext be freed from imprisonment, and that they shall not be arrested henceforth on such a miserable pretext, unless -- which we do not believe -- they be caught in the commission of the crime. We decree that no Christian shall stir up anything new against them, but that they should be maintained in that status and position in which they were in the time of our predecessors, from antiquity till now.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg10/g10jprot.htm

If one is confronted by someone who likes to point out actual and invented sins of Catholics, I don't think making this particular accusation is the best way to respond or to show that everyone has sinners in their midst.

[voxpopulisuxx]

This is about the institutionalisation of anti Christan behavior and attitudes within Judaism and Jewish secular culture. Not about the individual sinner. Following you logic -Then Islam is a religion of peace after all? Its just those mean individual Muslims that are sinners? Islamic culture and Islam are anti christian even if it means violence (or especially...if it means violence?) Judaism and secular Jewish culture are no different and I see no one arguing here anything different, or anything about condemning individual sins.And i think a "right wing" Rabbi advocating violence tword gentile (read Christian or Palistinian) children is being 'caught in the act".

[Arun]

Just as there are deranged individuals today that kidnap and brutally murder children, I'm sure it happened back then too. I'm sure Jews and Christians alike were found amongst these lots, just as today such individuals are found amongst every race and creed. It bears pointing out, however, that Pope Bl. Gregory X forbade Christians from asserting such claims against Jews unless they were caught in the act:

Since it happens occasionally that some Christians lose their children, the Jews are accused by their enemies of secretly carrying off and killing these same Christian children and of making sacrifices of the heart and blood of these very children. It happens, too, that the parents of these very children, or some other Christian enemies of these Jews, secretly hide these very children in order that they may be able to injure these Jews, and in order that they may be able to extort from them a certain amount of money by redeeming them from their straits. [Following the lead of Innocent IV, 1247, Gregory attacks the ritual murder charge at length.]

And most falsely do these Christians claim that the Jews have secretly and furtively carried away these children and killed them, and that the Jews offer sacrifices from the heart and the blood of these children, since their law in this matter precisely and expressly forbids Jews to sacrifice, eat, or drink the blood, or to eat the flesh of animals having claws. This has been demonstrated many times at our court by Jews converted to the Christian faith: nevertheless very many Jews are often seized and detained unjustly because of this.

We decree, therefore, that Christians need not be obeyed against Jews in a case or situation of this type, and we order that Jews seized under such a silly pretext be freed from imprisonment, and that they shall not be arrested henceforth on such a miserable pretext, unless -- which we do not believe -- they be caught in the commission of the crime. We decree that no Christian shall stir up anything new against them, but that they should be maintained in that status and position in which they were in the time of our predecessors, from antiquity till now.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg10/g10jprot.htm

If one is confronted by someone who likes to point out actual and invented sins of Catholics, I don't think making this particular accusation is the best way to respond or to show that everyone has sinners in their midst.

The quoted encyclical was written to prevent unjust persecution of jews. that doesn't mean we can't hold them accountable for actions they have actually commited.

[SaintSebastian]

Obviously, as everyone should be justly held accountable (with room for the possibility of mercy of course). The point the Pope was making however, is that these actions weren't actually committed--that's why when he adds the part about one being caught in commission of the act, he says "which we do not believe."

My point is--and this goes to vps's point too--there's enough anti-Christian things in the Talmud or in historical events to make the point that Judaism as a religion is staunchly opposed to Christianity (just as there is plenty of verifiable historical evidence that the religion of Islam historically tends to violence rather than peace) without having to grasp at accusations that are dubious at best--especially because that dubiousness is in large part caused by the fact that Christians were faking these things often enough for a Pope to have to point it out.

[Arun]

Obviously, as everyone should be justly held accountable (with room for the possibility of mercy of course). The point the Pope was making however, is that these actions weren't actually committed--that's why when he adds the part about one being caught in commission of the act, he says "which we do not believe."

My point is--and this goes to vps's point too--there's enough anti-Christian things in the Talmud or in historical events to make the point that Judaism as a religion is staunchly opposed TO Christianity (just as there is plenty of verifiable historical evidence that Islam historically tends to violence rather than peace) without having to grasp at accusations that are dubious at best--especially because that dubiousness is in large part caused by the fact that Christians were faking these things often enough for a Pope to have to point it out.

The case in question of little St Hugh of Lincoln and St Simon of Trent could hardly be described as being "dubious".

[SaintSebastian]

The case in question of little St Hugh of Lincoln and St Simon of Trent could hardly be described as being "dubious".

I don't know much about  St. Hugh of Lincoln so I'll assume you are correct, but St. Simon of Trent's story does have a lot of doubt--so much so that bishop of Trent at the time of the incident investigated and said it didn't happen,as I posted in the other thread on him. The Pope at the time, Sixtus IV, after his investigation, suppressed any veneration of Simonino. Sixtus IV's track record also shows he was as far from a friend of anti-Christian Jews as one could be. It wasn't until 100 years later, that Pope Sixtus V un-suppressed it. Sixtus V of course was the Pope who put St. Robert Bellarmine's famous "Disputations" on the Index, tried to claim universal civil jurisdiction, and produced the infamous "Sistine Bible"--in other words, his judgment in matters religious and his access to the facts of this particular situation were both much less compared to those of Sixtus IV. So why choose this example in order to prove anti-Christan sentiments in the actual tenets of Judaism, when there are plenty of other more verifiable examples out there?

And even assuming both of these instances are perfectly verifiable, they couldn't reasonable be considered any more than isolated incidents in which certain Jews acted in a manner contrary the tenets of their religion. It would be no different than trying to say the Catholic religion tends to violence against Jews because of the case of the 12th century monk Radulph who incited Christians to murder Jews (as cited in Pope Benedict XIV's encyclical A Quo Primum 4).

[Arun]

i didn'y say they weren't isolated; i merely contested your implicit denial of their occurence