Between May and June 1717, over 130 Jesuits left the island in disobedience to civil authority following the jurisdictional dispute between the Holy See and Victor Amadeus II, the island's new sovereign after the decisions of Utrecht. This is a lesser-known episode of the conflict known as the Lipari controversy, which took place in the final years of Spanish rule and was reignited with new secular vigour after the arrival of the Piedmontese sovereign and his ministers and advisers. In the case of the Society of Jesus, in fact, the Savoy's intransigence in demanding loyalty revealed the deep divisions among the fathers, many of whom showed that they understood the ideological tensions of the time and had a different relationship with the Holy See. It is from this perspective, therefore, that in the following pages I will attempt to outline that particular political juncture which, moreover, exemplarily revealed how different Europe was after the Peace of Utrecht compared to the past, not only because of the dynastic changes that resulted from it, but also because of the radical nature of the choices made by civil power towards ecclesiastical power, reflecting the political, social and ideological tensions of the time.
Tra maggio e giugno 1717, oltre centotrenta di gesuiti lasciarono l’isola per disobbedienza al potere civile nelle vicende derivanti dallo scontro giurisdizionale in atto tra la Santa Sede e Vittorio Amedeo II, nuovo sovrano dell’isola dopo le decisioni di Utrecht. Si tratta di una vicenda meno conosciuta del conflitto noto come controversia liparitana, avvenuto negli ultimi anni del governo spagnolo e accesosi di nuova linfa laica dopo l’arrivo del sovrano piemontese e dei suoi ministri e consiglieri. Nel caso della Compagnia di Gesù, infatti, l’intransigenza del Savoia nel richiedere fedeltà, palesò le profonde lacerazioni tra i padri, molti dei quali mostrarono di recepire le tensioni ideali del tempo e un diverso rapporto con la Santa Sede. È da tale prospettiva, quindi, che nelle pagine successive proverò a delineare quel particolare frangente politico che, peraltro, esemplarmente rivelò quanto fosse diversa l'Europa uscita dalla pace di Utrecht rispetto al passato e non solo per i cambi dinastici che ne derivarono, ma per la radicalità delle scelte del potere civile nei confronti del potere ecclesiastico, specchio delle tensioni politiche, sociale e ideali del tempo.
"ET NONDIMENO FINIS". I GESUITI ALLE SOGLIE DEL SETTECENTO TRA CONFLITTI, DISOBBEDIENZE, ESILI
Scalisi Lina
2025-01-01
Abstract
Between May and June 1717, over 130 Jesuits left the island in disobedience to civil authority following the jurisdictional dispute between the Holy See and Victor Amadeus II, the island's new sovereign after the decisions of Utrecht. This is a lesser-known episode of the conflict known as the Lipari controversy, which took place in the final years of Spanish rule and was reignited with new secular vigour after the arrival of the Piedmontese sovereign and his ministers and advisers. In the case of the Society of Jesus, in fact, the Savoy's intransigence in demanding loyalty revealed the deep divisions among the fathers, many of whom showed that they understood the ideological tensions of the time and had a different relationship with the Holy See. It is from this perspective, therefore, that in the following pages I will attempt to outline that particular political juncture which, moreover, exemplarily revealed how different Europe was after the Peace of Utrecht compared to the past, not only because of the dynastic changes that resulted from it, but also because of the radical nature of the choices made by civil power towards ecclesiastical power, reflecting the political, social and ideological tensions of the time.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


