He would have to first prove…to the satisfaction of an Italian court that didn’t want to hear the case…that Jesus Christ never existed. Then, sepending on what the law says, he would have to prove to some degree of certainty that the defendant had knowingly taught falshoods. That is, that FatherRighi* knew* Christ was not real and taught that he was anyway.The laws cited in the article seem to forbid “swindling and deceit”, not “teaching one’s own beliefs.”
…If the plaintiff did win, then the Church would have to fight to keep her right to teach the truth.