ROME (Reuters) - Forget the U.S. debate over intelligent design versus evolution.
An Italian court is tackling Jesus -- and whether the Roman Catholic Church may be breaking the law by teaching that he existed 2,000 years ago.
The case pits against each other two men in their 70s, who are from the same central Italian town and even went to the same seminary school in their teenage years.
The defendant, Enrico Righi, went on to become a priest writing for the parish newspaper. The plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, became a vocal atheist who, after years of legal wrangling, is set to get his day in court later this month.
"I started this lawsuit because I wanted to deal the final blow against the Church, the bearer of obscurantism and regression," Cascioli told Reuters.
Cascioli says Righi, and by extension the whole Church, broke two Italian laws. The first is "Abuso di Credulita Popolare" (Abuse of Popular Belief) meant to protect people against being swindled or conned. The second crime, he says, is "Sostituzione di Persona", or impersonation.
"The Church constructed Christ upon the personality of John of Gamala," Cascioli claimed, referring to the 1st century Jew who fought against the Roman army.
A court in Viterbo will hear from Righi, who has yet to be indicted, at a January 27 preliminary hearing meant to determine whether the case has enough merit to go forward.
"In my book, The Fable of Christ, I present proof Jesus did not exist as a historic figure. He must now refute this by showing proof of Christ's existence," Cascioli said.
Speaking to Reuters, Righi, 76, sounded frustrated by the case and baffled as to why Cascioli -- who, like him, came from the town of Bagnoregio -- singled him out in his crusade against the Church.
"We're both from Bagnoregio, both of us. We were in seminary together. Then he took a different path and we didn't see each other anymore," Righi said.
"Since I'm a priest, and I write in the parish newspaper, he is now suing me because I 'trick' the people."
Righi claims there is plenty of evidence to support the existence of Jesus, including historical texts.
He also claims that justice is on his side. The judge presiding over the hearing has tried, repeatedly, to dismiss the case -- prompting appeals from Cascioli.
"Cascioli says he didn't exist. And I said that he did," he said. "The judge will to decide if Christ exists or not."
Even Cascioli admits that the odds are against him, especially in Roman Catholic Italy.
"It would take a miracle to win," he joked.
Reuters
Now taking a step back. Regardless of what one has faith in, wouldn't Cascioli have to prove that the current Church is INTENTIONALLY, and with harmful intent, misleading the world? I'm not a Christian, but if he wins (highly doubtful), wouldn't this be an attack against all faiths?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, first I would think he needs to prove that Christ didn't exist. Writing a book and making a claim isn't any kind of proof.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Well, first I would think he needs to prove that Christ didn't exist. Writing a book and making a claim isn't any kind of proof.
Not being in any way familiar with Italian law, I'd like to know who the burden of proof in this type of case falls on. For skeptics there is no substantial proof of Jesus' existence. For those of Christian faith there is probably no substantial proof that he did not exist.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can tell this guy is out for publicity. He's trying to sell his book, and doesn't expect anything more from it I'm sure. I'm surprised this even went to court, though.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, first I would think he needs to prove that Christ didn't exist.
No. First he needs to prove intent to mislead. Without that, even if Christ doesn't exist, he doesn't have a case. In America, I suspect this would be dismissed on these grounds almost immediately.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but where is this guy coming from? I've heard plenty of arguments against the deity of Jesus, but against the very existence? Is there anyone here who could explain that argument to me?
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but where is this guy coming from? I've heard plenty of arguments against the deity of Jesus, but against the very existence? Is there anyone here who could explain that argument to me?
Well I'm not a history major, but even the historical documents are said by many historical atheists to be forged later on.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey wait, I know how this one ends! The defense attorney brings in thousands of letters kids have written to Jesus, piles them up in court and explains that the Italian postal service has delivered these letters to the catholic church. They win the case and all the children are happy!
posted
Interesting. That version leaves out the entire cause for the lawsuit given in this other version:
quote:Signor Cascioli, author of a book called The Fable of Christ, began legal proceedings against Father Righi three years ago after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ’s historical existence.
posted
How could you prove that someone did/didn't exist? 2000 years ago? How did this ever get to court?
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well I'm not a history major, but even the historical documents are said by many historical atheists to be forged later on.
Historical atheists?
Actually there are quite a number of Jewish archaeologists who question the historical existence of Jesus.
As to historical documents, it's not a question of whether they were forged, but whether they exist. There are no contemporary historical documents that corroborate the gospels. There are no roman records of his case, or of any kind of uprising, or movement. The closest would be Josephus, who (iirc) took a history of the area from the locals about 100 years later (someone will correct me on the details, I suspect).
I haven't read this guy's book, but I suspect his argument comes from the fact that Christianity couldn't get a foothold in Jerusalem. The apostles and Paul had to go across the ocean to Greece and Rome, where no one would contradict their story.
There is also a lot of evidence that words like "Nazareth" have no meaning. The modern Nazareth was a burial ground during the time of Christ, and no one would have lived anywhere near it. Apparently it got to be known as Nazareth because locals were found it profitable to guide pilgrim tourists there. There are also biblical references to Jesus being pushed off a cliff that simply doesn't exist.
Of course none of this proves Jesus didn't exist. I personally do believe he was a historical figure, regardless of how much his story was embellished. But I think the part about taking the story to Greece and Rome has some validity, because it wouldn't work very well to tell stories about Jesus working miracles, when the locals knew perfectly well that he hadn't.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
