PhilGoetz:

The Catholic church has a feudalistic organization, and is perhaps not coincidentally richer than any Protestant church, probably even per capita - except for the Mormons, with assets of about $6000/member, whose organizational structure I know little about (read this if interested).

This is a completely inaccurate use of the term "feudalistic." The rigid hierarchy of the Catholic Church is extremely dissimilar to the European medieval social order that's commonly called "feudal," in which local lords had a level of autonomy and autarky unimaginable by modern standards.

A Catholic priest who defies his bishop or other superior will lose his position promptly, and the same will happen to a bishop who defies the pope. Control and discipline are enforced tightly at each level, and the hierarchy is staffed by men from lower levels who get promoted and appointed by the central authority (except for the elective pope, of course, and with some rare peculiar semi-autonomous local institutions due to accidents of history). In contrast, a feudal lord ruled his fief for life as his own property, and left it to his heirs after death -- while his overlord, or even king, had no control whatsoever over his day-to-day affairs, and could only demand the regular tribute. Even in cases of open defiance, it was by no means certain whether the king would be able to get his way. This fragmented world of extreme local autonomy and autarky was the polar opposite of the modern tightly disciplined Catholic hierarchy.

Generally speaking, "feudalism" is one of those terms that are often thrown around casually and without any regard for historical accuracy, to the point where they've become nearly meaningless (kind of like "fascism"). Whenever you feel tempted to use it for the purpose of making historical parallels, you should stop and think carefully whether it makes sense.