The official answer to this that it would cause uncertainty regarding future decisions.

And I won't even start with devaluation, the geopolitical position of Greece or the chaos on the streets.

Uncertainty would be less of a problem if the ECB's stated goal would be to defend the money supply in the Eurozone through mass distribution.

There are many uncertainties. Like the one regarding the fact that you can get an absolution from the ECB if you cause enough havoc. Or the one where you shouldn't invest in any country that may even smell slightly endangered (which would actually cause that north/south europe contruct). On the other hand it may even lure in even more "evil" investments with the right insurance. All this with a fast devaluating Euro? Sounds pretty bad to me.

I'm not sure how redistribution of wealth in case of a financial crisis counts as "absolution" from the ECB--if your 1000 person firm causes a 5000 Euro per capita loss in the money supply, your company is busted and everyone there ends up with 5 million Euros combined, which is small money by finance company/bank standards. It's not that much of a change from existing practice--all central banks defend their money supply to some extent. The only difference is that they would do so through every citizen in every country where the currency is official instead of only major banks, so the money actually gets spent instead of being hoarded and banks can't make massive profits through monetary arbitrage.

It's not redistribution of wealth when with every Euro you print, the currency gets further devaluated. This wouldn't happen. Ever. They'd rather separate it in North and Sourth Euro before somebody would even seriously think about that for a second.

The currency doesn't get devaluated in this case because the supply of Euros doesn't increase--the ECB is only replacing the money supply lost when the banks collapse.

But the supply is not "lost". It did not disappear in space.