That's a great point. I'm a Christian, and I think the reason why you have a lot of intellectual firepower directed against modern "Christianity" (which is an ideology that can't be found in the New Testament) is not simply because atheists think that Christians are wrong. You don't read polemics against Bob down at the insane asylum, arguing that he is not, in fact, a dog, despite his insistence. The difference to an atheist between a lunatic and a Christian is simply this: the lunatic doesn't _vote_ to force his insane views on the world, but a Christian does.
Personally, I don't think voting, or any form of political participation, is consistent with Christ's teachings, specifically when he says "Don't resist evil" in Matthew 5:39. The entire point of the state is to resist evil (Max Weber even defines a "state" as the group that holds the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence in a geographic area), and voting is informing the government about how you want them to resist evil for you. And of course the very existence of the modern church depends on using the government to resist evil and get money, so you'll find all sorts of casuistry and rationalizations about how Jesus didn't really mean what he said, but none of them hold water.
Point being, if Christians started following Christ, even a little bit, they'd find that they have a lot fewer "enemies".
Organized religion is, to me, organized control of the masses. But not feeding into that is not the primary reason. It’s that I have a hard time believing that the more we learn about the world the harder it becomes to find any evidence of god’s existence, which would be the exact opposite if he did exist.
There are expenses to keep the lights on. A small number of staff receive modest salaries. There's a fund for capital expenses. And if the parish manages to do more than break even, guess where the rest goes? To help the poor and disadvantaged. Parishioners are encouraged to share their money and time to support the poor in other ways, as well. There are regular collections for those causes.
I'm sure there is some level of corruption and embezzlement across the church globally, just as there is in just about any large institution, but I'd say that in terms of bringing in money, the vast majority of parishes and dioceses are just trying to get by, and to serve their communities when they can.
The image of the Catholic Church being some vast, obscenely wealthy, powerful organization is good for the Da Vinci Code but doesn't really jibe with reality. The Vatican, whose annual budget is about five times smaller than that of Cleveland, rarely has revenue that exceeds its operating expenses.
The church across the street from my house is large and I'm sure heating and upkeep is no small chunk of change. A good portion of the cars parked in the reserved row (staff) are nicer than mine, so I'm guessing the salary isn't necessarily "modest".
The story that the Church donates most of its money "to help the poor and disadvantaged" is a reassurance which is meant to paper over the fact that the Church is not a very transparent organization.
In terms of bringing in money, the vast majority of parishes and dioceses are on Church-owned land and have some sort of tax benefit or writeoff. This makes them far more stable than their surrounding community members, and somewhat ruins the image of the humble parish priest simply trying to spread the Good Word; his employer is certainly not humble in wealth.
[0] http://www.ior.va/content/dam/ior/documenti/rapporto-annuale...