Oh Men are certainly flawed beings and I do not now or previously expect men to be saints. The issue, the reason why I view the Universal Church as the "worse guys" in this hypothetical, isn't so much the killing itself or even human nature tendency towards abuse of power. No, my core objection rests upon that this line of thought rejects the rights of the individual in favor of the collective pretty heavily. That the "crime" isn't based upon public actions but private belief. That tips things from a justifiable killing to murder.
I don't think the issue is primarily a religious one. I'm Catholic. In and of itself, I like and feel drawn towards the a singular, encompassing Church. There is a conformity, a sense of belonging and on a purely aesthetic level the Church, its splendor in art and architect appeals to me greatly.
Rather I suspect the difference lies more in our nationalities. I'm American which means I've assimilated many, for lack of a better term, Protestant assumptions in regards to government and religion's place in the public sphere at least as it pertains to the American context.
As for "reality on the ground", under one a Church can say no or go counter to the other. There's a freedom of choice. The other lacks such a distinction.
That I rather strongly disagree with. Not only is a "few hundred miles" well within a day's travel by car but with modern technology the Emperor doesn't need to physically travel there to have real time knowledge of what is transpiring. He can have facetime with the local village leader at a moment's notice. He can, should he desire it, have everything from the serfs under his domain's health records to their incarceration at a snap of his finger to determine if said leader is being a good steward.
Short of regressing to early 20th if not 19th century, the State will have the power to always be omnipresent. Being a few hundred miles away is the same as living in the capitol city.
Personally this view feels a bit schizophrenic. On one hand you are arguing people will have developed a distrust of "abusive" state power, that they'll fall back on tradition to "limited government" but at the same time you and others, notably
@Cherico , argue the Principate will arise out of chaos and violent destruction to " promises unity and certainty. It gives safety and stability" and because the preceding turmoil of the "wars of "Caesarism"" men will have " seen enough trouble for several lifetimes, and they'll want no more of it" meaning they'll get in line.
Security and Liberty frequently are on opposing poles since freedom necessitates disorder. Men who favor the former are unlikely to be overly concerned or even view the problem as being State Power as opposed to it merely being directed against them. Resulting in a government which rewards them spoils rather than curbing the power of the Government.
But as you point out, the "Augustus" isn't really concerned with tradition merely leeching off of its legitimacy to serve his own ends. And what isn't useful will be airbrushed away or made to fit.
I wouldn't agree "democracy" is the primary source of our problems whether we're talking about Greek mass democracy or more limited, Republican representation. Within a representative system its the easiest vector by which to expand the scope of government of course, since its very easy to convince people to vote for getting free lollipops, but no one in the US voted to dissolve the Southern border or for the nameless bureaucrats who make up the EPA or a thousand other government agencies. Rather the key problem of our age is a managerial class who believes they know better which will remain a problem whether government czars are appointed by elected politicians or by a monarch.
Further there are two interrelated but distinct poles when it comes to government power, authority and reach. Obviously in days past while a government's authority may have been approaching absolute its reach was limited. No matter how much a King might want to micromanage it simply wasn't feasible. Hence the, relatively, small but not limited government.
My fear is that now government reach is effectively limitless and combined with a head of state who's authority is, essentially, absolute means the only restraint is the Emperor's preference. If he wants he can listen in on every phone call, every e-mail and text with a room full of agents reviewing what dumb AI's have flagged as potentially heretical.