I was insulted on the original thread for questioning this and pointing out it’s propaganda-like properties.
And I am not pro-Catholic (nor anti-Catholic).
I do respectfully suggest that your blood libel comments are over the top and much too dramatic and defensive than needs be.
You are definitely right about the first verdict zeal. It was weird and bizarre.
To try for some exactitude here: the historically original, and horrible, "blood libel" was the lurid accusation that Jews require human blood for the baking of matzos for Passover: usually, specifically, the blood of a Christian infant or child.
I've read that there were and are over 150 different kinds of blood libels, including that Jews, gypsies, or other socially disfavored groups poisoned wells, desecrated the Blessed Sacrament, cursed humans or livestock with sterility, conjured blood-drinking demons, caused miscarriages, brought on earthquakes, etc.
Thus the semantic field of the term "blood libel" has gotten bigger over the centuries, and, I would say, encompasses the charge of the negligent or malicious slaying of infants and their interment in a septic tank.
I was also on that past thread when the "damning" accusations made by several posters were as if the nuns intentionally murdered 800 children and threw the 800 bodies in an unmistakeably documented dunghole, with malice aforethought, even though the historian noted that the actual purpose of the container has never been studied or established. That's not far from equivalent to blood libel, a term with 12th C. origins in Europe about justifying the persecution of Jews by claiming that Jews ritually murdered Christian children.
I also noted your calm and reasonable responses on that thread. Thanks for being one of the "wait and see" folks. The hysterical accusations of a hater leaping to conclusions not in evidence has already started on this thread.