I'm not sure I understand - are you placing politics above God or just confused about from whence true authority is derived? Also, the Inquisition dealt with public manifest heretics who were leading others into damnation with their errors; it did not try to indiscriminately coerce heretics who held their views in private, as the article mentioned:
Remember above all that the Inquisition did not concern itself with the private opinions of the heretics, but solely with the public propagation of the heresy. The Inquisition did not commit any offense against the individual conscience, but acted solely against the exterior activities of the heretics.
And by what authority does any church question people who state their beliefs in public?
And to answer your first question: yes, I place politics above church authority in matters of coercion, force, intimidation, etc.
If a church wishes to set standards for membership and question members about their qualifications, that's not a problem. But if a person wishes not to be a member, or wishes to publicly question the beliefs of a church, the church has no business questioning anything except that person's membership.
"Remember above all that the Inquisition did not concern itself with the private opinions of the heretics, but solely with the public propagation of the heresy. The Inquisition did not commit any offense against the individual conscience, but acted solely against the exterior activities of the heretics."
Actually Fifth, the Tribunals did indeed concentrate on things such as Private diaries, as well as forcing those called before the Tribunal to recount all Books they had read, Lectures they had listened to, people they had been in contact with.
When one was called to the Casa Sancta, their life was laid bare, and the "Suspect" was forced to sign a full "confession" based on the findings of the Tribunal. Any attempt by the penitant to with hold information from the Inquisitors was grounds to relax them.