Well, why does a religion need a bank?
What about the Jesuits? Nice people?
Money and power can be a corrupting influence.
My feeling is that although Roman Catholicism is not all bad, it does not measure up to Presbyterianism or the Pentecostals, for instance, who do not have such a technocratic stucture. The power of the message is evident in Catholicism, but I simply cannot trust an organisation with that much money, power, influence.
That said, the Church of England's (protestant) Archbishops are really political appointments. They are not really appointed by the Head of State (King or Queen).
Margaret Thatcher appointed Archbishop Carey to bring Britain in line with America's evangelical movement, the positivism of which was supposed to somehow link in with her radical free-market reforms.
Tony Blair appointed Rt. Rev. John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York:
He is probably a decent fellow, but I am no doubt that his appointment was politically motivated and engineered by Britain's neo-Marxists.
Unless Anglican clergymen adhere to
'partiinost', they do not receive promotion.
The Catholic Church in Britain, by contrast, is independent of the Government, so their message is often better on a number of issues, most recently that of 'gay adoption'.
The Presbyterian Church in Scotland and Northern Ireland is more independent still, and these are the sorts of ministries which Communists fear the most...