Building a Better Corporate Religion

The Catholic Church is a storied religious organization two-thousand years in the making. It is also a multinational corporation worth an estimated 15 billion dollars. As such, it acts in what its CEO and board perceives as its own best interests. And those core interests are to ultimately sustain both its market share and economic value. Based on the Church’s corporate heritage, it’s safe to say it will never divest its assets.

And I can make this assumption because in the last 2,000 years, the policy of the Roman Church has never been one to “share the wealth” – which would seem opposed to its core mission, a mission the organization’s founder espoused; we should revile the wealthy, welcome the stranger, feed and house the poor, cure the sick, and most importantly – love thy neighbor. All truly good ideas and might I add, all humanist values.

The last Pope attempted to make the Church more pastoral, not necessarily empty its coffers, but give the impression that caring for others was fundamental to his and the organization’s mission. I think Francis meant it, and his desire to put a more humane face on the Church was not just window dressing, but came from a sincere wish to bring change. Sadly, because of this focus and because he was a Jesuit, Pope Francis had many enemies in the Church hierarchy, especially amongst the conservatives and “traditionalists.”

From a business perspective, I always hear people in my community of freethinkers say, “tax the church.” I understand this impulse to hold religious organizations accountable, and agree they should not be immune to taxation. But if you know anything about tax law and corporations, you know that no matter what the faith tradition, if taxed like corporations, they will hire the same army of tax lawyers and accountants to ensure they pay as little as possible – even zero, to the state. Just like every other for-profit corporation entity attempts to do.

But billion-dollar assets aside, it should be fairly noted that there are many people of faith – individuals working in a private capacity or in small groups both inside and outside of houses of worship, who work for peace and economic and social justice. While those efforts should be lauded, it’s important to recognize that such work can and is being done through secular means, thus not requiring any faith or dogma to guide one’s actions. Even still, these people are our humanist allies, not our adversaries.

Often it’s the case when religious deeds align with the secular humanist version of action and its commitment to humanity, that those with faith profoundly help people and their plight. But ironically, secularism never gets the kudos that faith traditions do for inspiring good deeds – which I see as fundamentally unfair. If you’re ladling soup, working for peace, housing those without a home or helping the environment to get brownie points to get into heaven or avoid hell, or to please a “heavenly father,” I conclude your actions, however noble, are very disingenuous.

But it’s not just me who notices this disconnection between deed, need, and humane purpose. “Big Religion” faces wider troubles; houses of worship are closing, parochial schools and faith-based colleges are shutting their doors, and whole parishes are shrinking. Church attendance is dismal and the number of people willing to become clergy are at their lowest in several generations. It’s clear the message of the Roman Church and organized religion in general is not resonating as it once did in the West. And as such, several brands are failing.

However, I am personally agnostic (pun intended) about the future of organized religion and its growth. Certainly, in Western nations, organized faith seems to have run its course. And thus, secular nations become more peaceful, legally just, and happier. At the same time, their populations are well taken care of, and the social fabric which includes free education and national healthcare systems removes stress from everyday lives.

But organized religion has had a resurrection of sorts (another pun intended) in the poorest countries in Africa and South and Central America. Evangelicalism and Islam have both seen growth in their adherent numbers. However, these are changes mainly in religious demography caused by people leaving traditional church settings for more conservative faith traditions. And within Islam, its growth is due mainly to a rise in birth rates amongst Muslims, rather than outside conversions to the faith.

I sincerely doubt any Abrahamic faith organization would take me on as a brand or management consultant. And honestly, I wouldn’t feel completely at home within their walls, either. Not because I cannot connect to people and their humanity, but because as a non-believer, I have no interest in seeing religious faith succeed unless it is to support the secular state.

What I mean is, religious belief can be an intricate part of any secular state – the state should not inhibit any person from having or espousing religious, spiritual or secular feelings or ideas, communicating them, and meeting to discuss them. That is the hallmark of essential religious freedom. However, the secular state also needs to enforce strict laws and guidance that firmly places religious values and policies outside of federal, state, and local government that exists to administer secular laws “for and by the people,” to ensure equal and fair justice. This is especially true in law as it is in public education.

So, let’s end this essay on a note of compassion, empathy and hope – values that are emblematic of our humanist ideals – ideals which are shared, at least on some level, with non-evangelical and spiritual faith traditions.

I do feel sympathy for those who lost their Pope, and I understand the role doctrine plays in their lives. Perhaps in these times of loss, a meditation as to what will bring humanity closer together is in order? As the last Pope noted, and I believe many humanists will agree, it is our duty to build bridges of understanding between people and NOT put up walls.

Here then, humanism and religious doctrine could be tied together like a DNA strand. And that’s a good thing for sure.