Conclave transforms cardinal's hometown into hub of speculation
In the Veneto town of Schiavon, Italy, the anticipation of a papal conclave has transformed the local Caffè Centrale into a buzzing hub of speculation and aperitivo.
Locals and journalists alike have gathered, eyes fixed on a large television screen broadcasting images from St. Peter's Square, specifically the chimney atop the Sistine Chapel.
As 133 cardinals cast their initial votes, the townspeople of Schiavon, near Vicenza, sipped wine and awaited the first puff of smoke.
Much of the local interest centred on Cardinal Pietro Parolin, a papal favourite and a native son of the Veneto region.
"We're waiting, and we're rooting for him," said Giacomo Bonora, raising a glass of red wine spritz, a local favourite.
Mr Bonora referred to Cardinal Parolin by his local nickname, "Don Piero", a term of endearment typically used for parish priests in the Veneto dialect.
He noted that when Cardinal Parolin returns to his hometown of 2,600, he prefers this familiar address over the formal title of "eminence".
The scene in Schiavon offered a glimpse into the personal connection between a small Italian town and its cardinal, now a prominent figure on the world stage during a pivotal moment for the Catholic Church.
Cardinal Parolin, 70, is a veteran diplomat who was Pope Francis 's secretary of state, essentially the Holy See's prime minister and No. 2 to the pope.
Outside, a city worker stopped to show the parish sacristan a photo of Cardinal Parolin when the town celebrated his elevation to secretary of state 12 years ago. Everyone is hopeful, but officials have been instructed not to speak to the media until a new pope is elected.
Angelo Cisalto, the sacristan at the town's St. Margherita parish church, was heading home to keep an eye on the smoke coming out of the chimney.
If it is white, it is his job to go and ring the church bells.
Mr Cisalto, 84, remembers Cardinal Parolin as a child, 14 years his junior, and always devout.
'He used to dress up as an altar boy, and at home, in his garage, he had a little altar,'' where he would play saying Mass, Mr Cisalto recalled. 'He is a very good, very humble person."
Back at Caffè Centrale, clients ordered plates of cold cuts as the closed meeting of cardinals dragged on long past the expected hour. TV reporters whose air times had passed headed out for the night. Finally, black smoke emerged.
'Tomorrow, we'll do it again,' Mr Bonora said.
Locals recalled that Cardinal Parolin came regularly to Schiavon before his mother died last summer. His father died when he was 10, and he entered the seminary in nearby Vicenza at 14. For a period, he was a parish priest in the foothills town of Schio before joining the Vatican 's diplomatic corps.
While closely associated with Francis' pontificate, Cardinal Parolin is much more demure in personality and diplomatic in his approach to leading than the Argentine Jesuit he served – and he knows where the Catholic Church might need a course correction.
Many see him as embodying Francis' pastoral message while being more open to conservative points of view. While his career has been spent in Italy, his job as a Vatican diplomat has seen him travel the world, giving him a global perspective.
If he were elected, he would return an Italian to the papacy after three successive outsiders: St. John Paul II (Poland), Pope Benedict XVI (Germany) and Francis (Argentina).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court orders reconsideration of religious objection to N.Y. abortion care requirement
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a lower court to take a second look at a religious challenge to a New York state requirement that employers provide health care plans that include abortion coverage. The justices said the case should be reviewed again in light of their ruling ear l ier this month that Wisconsin had unlawfully denied charitable groups associated with the Catholic Church a state tax exemption. In a separate action Monday, the court also took up a case from New Jersey arising from the state's investigation of anti-abortion pregnancy centers that provide guidance to pregnant women. The technical issue is whether the state can enforce subpoenas against First Choice Women's Resource Centers Inc., which runs five centers, seeking information about donors. First Choice says the subpoena violates its free speech rights and freedom of association under the Constitution's First Amendment. The New York case revolves around a regulation issued by New York in 2017 that requires employer-provided health insurance plans to include abortion coverage in certain situations, including in cases of rape and incest. It includes a religious exemption that applies to institutions but does not extend to religious-affiliated groups that serve the general public, such as those that provide food to low-income people. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany and other organizations sued, saying the exemption is so narrow it violates the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects the free exercise of religion. In addition to Catholic entities, Lutheran, Episcopalian and Baptist groups are also among the challengers. Lawyers for the religious groups say that, based on recent Supreme Court rulings, narrowly drawn religious exemptions can be just as problematic as no exemption at all. They argue that the justices should overturn the 1990 precedent, a case called Employment Division v. Smith. The New York case has been litigated for years and already reached the Supreme Court once. Then, the justices ordered the state court to revisit an earlier ruling against the diocese. That followed a 2021 Supreme Court ruling on the same legal question in which the justices ruled in favor of a Catholic Church-affiliated group in Philadelphia that was barred from participating in the city's foster care program because of its opposition to same-sex relationships. In another case with some overlap, the Supreme Court in 2020 endorsed a broad religious exemption to a provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance coverage for birth control. In a May 2024 ruling, the New York Court of Appeals again ruled for the state, saying that neither the regulation nor the religious exemption violated the free exercise clause. The state's lawyers argued in court papers that the religious exemption 'provides a denominationally neutral accommodation' based on objective criteria. As such, the measure — since codified into law by the state Legislature — is a 'generally applicable' law under the Supreme Court's 1990 precedent, they wrote.
Reuters
6 hours ago
- Reuters
Savings are matter of national security, Italy tells EU on UniCredit-BPM bid
ROME, June 16 (Reuters) - Italy has responded to European Union queries on the conditions it has imposed on UniCredit's ( opens new tab bid for Banco BPM ( opens new tab by saying domestic savings are a matter of national security, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. The European Commission had asked Rome for details about the terms that Giorgia Meloni's government set in authorising UniCredit's buyout offer for smaller lender BPM. The EU's scrutiny of the way Italy uses its 'golden power' legislation to shield key assets could lead to an infringement procedure. To clear the deal, the Italian government told UniCredit to halt its activities in Russia, except for payments, by early 2026 and to refrain from lowering BPM's loan-to-deposit ratio for five years. The EU, which promotes free movement of capital within the bloc, objected that it was unclear how an Italian lender buying a domestic rival could threaten the country's security and therefore be subject to golden power conditions. Italy has responded that more than 60% of UniCredit's capital is held by non-EU investors, the sources briefed on the contents of letters Rome exchanged with Brussels told Reuters. With a large public debt to refinance each year, Rome considers it important that the allocation of savings remains in domestic hands. Italy also argued that a government's duty to defend a country's financial security applies regardless of whether a merger deal potentially affecting national savings involves a foreign player or is fully domestic, the sources said. The European Commission was not immediately available to comment. Born to fend off unwelcome offers from outside the EU bloc, golden powers were expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic to shield strategic companies as their valuations crashed. Some member states, including Italy, have applied the legislation to the banking sector, even though EU rules hand supervisory powers over banks to the European Central Bank (ECB). UniCredit's swoop on BPM, which derailed Rome's plans to combine BPM with state-backed Monte dei Paschi di Siena ( opens new tab, is part of a wave of takeover bids sweeping Italy. Italian Economy Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti said last month he would resign if he were overruled on UniCredit, after the government-imposed terms for the bid split the ruling coalition. Meloni has not recently spoken publicly on the issue.
NBC News
11 hours ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court orders reconsideration of religious objection to New York abortion health care coverage requirement
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a lower court to take a second look at a religious challenge to a New York state requirement that employers provide health care plans that include abortion coverage. The justices said the case should be reviewed again in light of their ruling last week that Wisconsin had unlawfully denied charitable groups associated with the Catholic Church from a state tax. In separate action on Monday, the court also took up a case from New Jersey arising from the state's investigation of anti-abortion pregnancy centers that provide guidance to pregnant women. The technical issue is whether the state can enforce subpoenas against First Choice Women's Resource Centers Inc., which runs five centers, seeking information about donors. First Choice says the subpoena violates its free speech rights and freedom of association under the Constitution's First Amendment. The New York case revolves around a regulation issued by New York in 2017 that requires employer-provided health insurance plans to include abortion coverage in certain situations, including in cases of rape and incest. It includes a religious exemption that applies to institutions but does not extend to religious-affiliated groups that serve the general public, such as those that provide food to low-income people. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany and other organizations sued, saying the exemption is so narrow it violates the Constitution's First Amendment, which protects the free exercise of religion. In addition to Catholic entities, Lutheran, Episcopalian and Baptist groups are also among the challengers. Lawyers for the religious groups say that, based on recent Supreme Court rulings, narrowly drawn religious exemptions can be just as problematic as no exemption at all. They argue that the justices should overturn the 1990 precedent, a case called Employment Division v. Smith. The New York case has been litigated for years and already reached the Supreme Court once. Then, the justices ordered the state court to revisit an earlier ruling against the diocese. That followed a 2021 Supreme Court ruling on the same legal question which the justices ruled in favor of a Catholic Church-affiliated group in Philadelphia that was barred from participating in the city's foster care program because of its opposition to same-sex relationships. In another case with some overlap, the Supreme Court in 2020 endorsed a broad religious exemption to a provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance coverage for birth control. In a May 2024 ruling, the New York Court of Appeals again ruled for the state, saying that neither the regulation nor the religious exemption violated the Free Exercise Clause. The state's lawyers argued in court papers that the religious exemption 'provides a denominationally neutral accommodation' based on objective criteria. As such, the measure — since codified into law by the state legislature — is a 'generally applicable' law under the Supreme Court's 1990 precedent, they wrote.
