The Baroque profanizes the sacred; the churches feel like palaces. But the Gothic sacralizes the secular; the castles feel like churches. It's definitely a one way relationship, and that's the direction it goes in for each respective style.
This sound ridiculous. Now Gothic is sacred? When was that dogma defined? I don't care what a church building
looks like as long as it's not modernistic/formless.
When I'm in a baroque church, I often feel something like "this is sorta like Versailles," let's say. When I am in Versailles, however, I do not think "this feels like a church". On the otherhand, when I see pictures of Windsor Castle, let's say, I think "medieval cathedral"...when I am in a medieval cathedral, however, my mind does not jump to "Windsor Castle".
You would if Windsor Castle was the first Gothic building you saw and you didn't know anything about Catholic culture. I think these things ought to be naturally diverse according to a people's culture. An Gothic church would not look good in Ireland just as much as a simple stone church would not look like in France nor would a Gothic church fit in the Byzantine Empire or a Greek dome look good in France or England. Some things are just cultural in time and place.
The Gothic therefore makes the sacred the standard, the assumption...and the secular is raised up to it. Whereas the Baroque makes the secular the baseline and then brings the sacred down to its own opulent level.
I believe the Sacred can raise anything and everything with natural beauty to itself according to the saying "Grace lifts nature and does not destroy it". Like you're saying Baroque doesn't even have natural beauty. I don't know its definition I can't say. I know Gothic generally or at least I think I do. Just my opinion though because I'm not even an amateur.