Small independent churches are obviously not big business, though perhaps they do dream of making it into the big time.
That's just speculation of course. From my experience, most small churches (not sure what you mean by independent) want to avoid what I think you mean by the big time. The problem is that the mega-churches, which represent a small minority are the one's that make the news. The small churches that provide charity for urban areas for instance go unnoticed for the most part.
The discussion though was focussing on one of the bigger players, and I think that it's fair to say that business and faith are very much separate elements of the global religious conglomerates. How wealth and benefits filter down through the organisation, from the big players and their Vatican luxury, to the average Catholic Joe scavenging one a rubbish dump in Manilla for example, is pretty typical of how all social systems work.
I understand. You're focusing on the Catholic church. The problem, although it may seem small, is the usage of the term religion when describing a particular church faction, organization, or any non-Christian religion. The problem is that it's used as a broad term to describe a particular organization and their negative aspects, which lumps together all religions, Abrahamic religions, Christian religions or factions like Catholicism, and protestant organizations. In other words, you were initially describing the Catholic church, but at the same time you're broadening the horizons to allow evangelicals, and/or Abrahamic religions, and/or all other religions.
Richard Dawkins, after 9/11 decided that not only all Muslims should be held responsible for the attack (as opposed to the specific faction responsible), but all Abrahamic religions should be held responsible. But....his subjective opinion did not include eastern religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.
