Based on historical evidence, one may assume that if modern church structures grant the clergy significant autonomy in matters of doctrine and practice, there is a risk of processes resembling inquisitorial judicial proceedings with their inherent paradoxes and methods.

Reviving Shadows: The Hidden Dangers of Clergy Autonomy

Based on historical evidence, one may assume that if modern church structures grant the clergy significant autonomy in matters of doctrine and practice, there is a risk of processes resembling inquisitorial judicial proceedings with their inherent paradoxes and methods. In other words, if one trusts historical examples, such liberalization of powers may lead to a practice where accusations are based on minimal or even singular testimonies, and the principle of presumption of innocence is replaced by a “guilty until proven innocent” mentality. This essentially means the application of severe measures against those who deviate from established dogmas.

As noted in one source, “There were quite a few paradoxes in the judicial process. For example, the accused was considered guilty until their innocence was proven (...). If you are accused of heresy, then until you prove your innocence, you are deemed guilty, and the most grievous measures might be applied against you…” (source: link txt). Such an approach could, in the absence of proper oversight, give rise to a system of arbitrary accusations where highly unlikely or even fabricated testimonies serve as the basis for severe punishment.

Furthermore, the historical role of the Inquisition demonstrates that its emergence was often a reaction to real threats—when there was a need to suppress those ideas and movements perceived as dangerous to the institution of the church. As noted, “The Inquisition is not a product of the Middle Ages. It is a creation of the Renaissance—a genuine response to a real enemy…” (source: link txt). If modern structures, when faced with new ideological or cultural challenges, once again grant the clergy the power to independently decide on measures against “heretics” or dissenters, a similar reaction could lead to the revival of practices based on excessive cruelty and the suppression of alternative views.

The consequences of such a development could be extremely destructive to the cultural and social climate of society. It could lead not only to the violation of principles of justice and human rights, but also to a schism within the church itself, as harsh measures and arbitrary persecution are unlikely to receive the support of the broader masses of believers, who are accustomed to more lenient and dialogical approaches.

Supporting citation(s):
“There were quite a few paradoxes in the judicial process. For example, the accused was considered guilty until their innocence was proven (the principle of presumption of innocence turned on its head)...” (source: link txt)

“The Inquisition is not a product of the Middle Ages. It is a creation of the Renaissance—a genuine response to a real enemy…” (source: link txt)