Rich Catholics Threaten Pope Francis — Because He Frightens Them

[Chrom]

If anyone wonders whether Pope Francis has irritated wealthy conservatives with his courage and idealism, the latest outburst from Kenneth Langone left little doubt. Sounding both aggressive and whiny, the billionaire investor warned that he and his overprivileged friends might withhold their millions of dollars from church and charity unless the pontiff stops preaching against the excesses and cruelty of unleashed capitalism.

According to Langone, such criticism from the Holy See could ultimately hurt the sensitive feelings of the rich so badly that they become "incapable of feeling compassion for the poor." He also said rich donors are already losing their enthusiasm for the restoration of St. Patrick's Cathedral in Manhattan — a very specific threat that he mentioned directly to Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York. While his ultimatum seems senseless — would a person of true faith stiff the church and the poor? — it may well be sincere. And Langone spends freely to promote his political and economic views, in the company of the Koch brothers and other Republican plutocrats....

As a leader of the New York Stock Exchange, he was largely responsible for the scandalous overpayment of his friend Richard Grasso, the exchange president who received nearly $190 million in deferred compensation when he stepped down. Although New York's highest court eventually upheld Grasso's pay package, it was a perfect example of the unaccountable, self-serving greed of Wall Street's elite.

Anything but repentant following the revelation and repudiation of the Grasso deal by NYSE executives, Langone told Forbes magazine in 2004: "They got the wrong f---ing guy. I'm nuts, I'm rich, and, boy, do I love a fight. I'm going to make them s--- in their pants. When I get through with these f---ing captains of industry, they're going to wish they were in a Cuisinart — at high speed."

http://www.noozhawk.com/article/joe_conason_rich_catholics_threaten_pope_francis_20140102

[el_bryanto]

1. Didn't you just post this article? why post it twice? nt

[Bluenorthwest]

2. because Dolan needs the PR?

"Cardinal Dolan, now the archbishop of New York, has emphatically denied seeking to shield church funds as the archbishop of Milwaukee from 2002 to 2009. He reiterated in a statement Monday that these were “old and discredited attacks.”

However, the files contain a 2007 letter to the Vatican in which he explains that by transferring the assets, “I foresee an improved protection of these funds from any legal claim and liability.” The Vatican approved the request in five weeks, the files show.

So, twice now, we have been forced to choose between his words and our lyin’ eyes, when it comes to questions of how he handled and cosseted child-rapists under his jurisdiction in Milwaukee. We now know he deliberately sequestered church assets so he could argue he had no more funds to compensate those raped by his subordinates. He was once again putting the institutional church’s interests above those of the raped. And he seems to be able to lie about all of it – in the face of massive evidence – with nary a flicker of hesitation."
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/07/02/the-final-busting-of-cardinal-dolans-lies/

[el_bryanto]

3. I'm sure that's not why the OP posted it. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

4. How are you sure of that?

Dolan is guilty of being a huge liar and protector of vicious rapists. Call me old fashioned in that I do not care to see such thugs framed as holy men waging war for the poor. Others can honor Dolan all they wish, I will join Mr Sullivan in pointing out what is the truth about Dolan.

[el_bryanto]

5. Well he or she hasn't commented, but I think the point was more that this Pope

is upsetting wealthy Catholics. Given the similarity between this post and the other.

Bryant

[Chrom]

6. you both were interested enough to click on both topics

but didn't bother to notice this is two separate articles by two different authors?

But yes, you got my point.

[el_bryanto]

7. Two seperate articles making the same point; why not combine them? nt