Cardinals Begin Conclave With an Oath
Inside the Sistine Chapel, the cardinals are taking an oath following the instructions of Pope John Paul II, in a document governing papal conclaves that he issued in 1996.
The most senior cardinal reads an oath in Latin and the 133 cardinals will read along, promising to follow the prescribed rules. They also pledge that whoever is chosen as the next pope will 'commit himself faithfully' to carrying out the mission of St. Peter, the first pontiff, 'and will not fail to affirm and defend strenuously the spiritual and temporal rights and the liberty of the Holy See.'
The cardinals also vow that the proceedings — including the voting — will remain secret, unless the new pope says that they can break that vow. Any notes taken during the conclave are supposed to be burned with the paper ballots, which are incinerated up to twice a day.
That said, accounts of the secretive deliberations have sometimes trickled out after the election, and some Vaticanisti, as the Vatican press corps is known, have puzzled together about how some choices may have been made. There have also been cases of 'secret diaries' by anonymous cardinals that later became public, as in the case of one recounting the election of Benedict XVI in 2005.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: First Lady Melania and Pope Leo are right — it's 'unum' time
In a season of tragedy and division, two powerful voices — one from the Vatican, one from the White House — reached for the same ancient word: Unum. Last month, after the horrific shooting outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., First Lady Melania Trump offered her condolences by quoting our national motto: E Pluribus Unum — 'Out of many, one.' Days earlier, Pope Leo XIV, the first American pontiff, delivered his inaugural message with a similar phrase etched into his papal crest: In Illo Uno Unum — 'In the One, One.' And with the horrifying attack on Jewish families in Boulder, Colorado, earlier this month, the same call to unity remains. These aren't just old, dusty Latin words. They were calls to unity in a time when America — and the world — feels dangerously divided. We are living through a season of immense high conflict, spilling over into hate-fueled violence. But from Rome to D.C., this month reminded us that Unum — unity — is not just a relic. It's a lifeline. Let's be honest: unity sounds soft. It can feel like wishful thinking. But today, invoking unity is a bold act. It takes guts to say, 'We still belong to each other,' especially when everything around us screams otherwise. I see signs of that courage every day. In an exhausted middle of Americans who are tired of the yelling, the blaming and the endless outrage. They're not perfect — but they're trying. Trying to build bridges instead of burning them. Trying to find common ground without giving up their convictions. That's the heart of Unum. It doesn't erase conflict or pretend we all agree. It's not utopia. It's the hard, daily work of choosing coexistence over chaos. Unum means Jewish and Muslim Americans grieving side-by-side. It means a First Lady who grew up Catholic in Slovenia invoking a motto that speaks across American synagogues, mosques and churches alike. It means a Pope who spent years in Latin America calling for peace — not as an abstract dream, but as an urgent task. And in Washington last week, that task was made painfully real. The shooting near the Israeli Embassy wasn't just another violent act. It was a national alarm. A young couple was killed. Jewish Americans and foreign diplomats had gathered at a museum dedicated to the hard work of remembering history and resisting hate. They came in peace. They fled in terror. If that doesn't shake us, what will? I mourn every loss — from D.C. to Gaza. As a former diplomat and humanitarian worker, I've seen the cost of war up close. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is heartbreaking: tens of thousands dead, aid blocked, civilians suffering. Hostages still not home. Israelis and Palestinians alike living in fear and grief. But pain doesn't have to harden us. It can humble us. It can move us to action — not vengeance. In moments like these, we face two temptations. One is despair: to give up, to believe the divisions are too deep. The other is rage: to blame, punish and retreat into our tribes. Neither will save us. The harder path — the braver one — is to build bridges anyway. Pope Leo XIV said it plainly: 'Be bridgebuilders, peace seekers, and companions on the journey.' That's not just a prayer. It's a plan. Because in a world driven by algorithms that divide and outrage that sells, choosing Unum is radical. It means staying at the table when you'd rather storm out. It means believing that pluralism — people of different faiths, races, beliefs and stories — can still build a shared life. You could say that in an interfaith nation like America, that is our common wealth — a society where deep differences don't divide us, they deepen us. The First Lady's words last month were not just a prayer — they were a call to action. Quoting our centuries-old motto E Pluribus Unum — 'Out of many, one' — was a reminder that belonging isn't partisan. It's American. It always has been. So let's hold on to that fragile hope. Let's say Unum again — and mean it.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Kyiv, not Kiev — Kyiv Independent community helps rename street in Oregon
A neighborhood in Springfield, Oregon, on June 10 renamed a local street from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" — a move initiated by members of the Kyiv Independent's global community. Photos shared with the Kyiv Independent show the newly installed blue-and-yellow street sign, reflecting both the correct Ukrainian transliteration and the national colors of Ukraine. The change comes amid a broader effort by Ukraine and its allies worldwide to move away from Russian-derived place names and honor Ukraine's linguistic and political independence. "We're very proud of our city (Springfield, OR, U.S.) for supporting our efforts to make this happen," one community member told the Kyiv Independent. The spelling "Kiev," pronounced "kee-yev," is the Russian version of Ukraine's capital. "Kyiv" (pronounced "keev") is the correct Ukrainian form, based on the native pronunciation and Latin transliteration. For decades, global usage favored Russian-based spellings, a legacy of the Soviet Union's dominance and the widespread misconception that Ukrainian cities and culture were merely extensions of Russia. Even after Ukraine declared independence in 1991, much of the international community continued using names like Kiev, Lvov, and Odessa — all Russified versions. That began to change after Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and its war in eastern Ukraine. The full-scale invasion in 2022 accelerated the shift, prompting governments, media outlets, and advocacy groups to adopt Ukrainian transliterations such as Kyiv, Lviv, and Odesa. Ukraine's Foreign Ministry has promoted the change through campaigns like #KyivNotKiev, arguing that the use of correct names respects Ukraine's sovereignty and resists Russian imperial narratives. Russian leaders, including President Vladimir Putin, have long emphasized historical ties to Kyiv in their justification for expansionist policies. Renaming streets and using correct spellings is one way communities abroad are pushing back. Read also: Kyiv, not Kiev — How Ukrainians reclaimed their capital's name We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Posse comitatus, or America beware
June 10 (UPI) -- For good or ill reasons, few Americans are aware of the Latin phrase posse comitatus and what it means. President Donald Trump's federalizing the California National Guard and ordering a battalion from the 7th Marine Regiment at Twentynine Palms to Los Angeles against the explicit refusal of Gov. Gavin Newsom to accept assistance brings the term into focus. It means organizing a group to confront lawlessness. In 1878, responding to the abuses of the Union Army in law enforcement after the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Posse Comitatus Act was signed by President Rutherford Hayes. In part, that law read: "From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force need the expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress." The law was amended in the Patriot Act to expand the use of the military but not regarding law-enforcement roles. That requires the president to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 that, in part, grants the president the authority to deploy the U.S. military and federalize the National Guard to suppress insurrections, rebellions or civil disorder within the United States. The last time the Insurrection Act was used to authorize the use of federal troops was in 1992 when President George H. W. Bush responded to the riots in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict was delivered acquiting the four LA police officers of murder. The recent LA riots broke out over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials arresting and detaining people accused of illegally entering the United States. A great majority of Americans -- 80-90% -- agree on deporting undocumented migrants with criminal records and who are dangers to the community. An equal number of Americans oppose deporting those people here illegally who are now part of the community and -- rather than being threats -- contribute to society. But the politics of immigration and the profound disagreements between the two political parties, not the riots, is the issue. In that regard, both Trump and Newsom are responding accordingly to their bases. However, make no mistake: The Trump-Newsom dispute, including a lawsuit filed against the government for federalizing the National Guard, is a symptom and sign of the dreadful state of American politics. Trump may have been very clever playing to his base that favors "peace through strength" abroad and at home. Both the Guard and Marines have been assigned to protect federal buildings, installations and employees not, repeat not, to conduct law-enforcement tasks. Yet, that has not been widely advertised to allow most Americans to believe that the military will have a wider use. And Trump has not authorized the Insurrection Act to that end. Newsom and Trump are using this crisis to make opposite points when the reality is different. Had this been a Republican-controlled state, whether Trump would have reacted or not is debatable. However, it is entirely reasonable that any president would be committed to protecting federal assets. Had Trump made this argument clear from the beginning, Newsom's response might have been different. But that would have defused the crisis, ironically, in neither of their interests. Tragically, politics demand exploiting these riots for clearly political and not security or public safety reasons. Trump was arguing that the law was on his side in deporting undesirable undocumented migrants. Newsom was asserting that the governor should be consulted first; that federal forces were not needed; and the president was using this to advance his agenda. As Inspector Renault in the movie Casablanca famously remarked, "Gambling at Rick's. I'm shocked!" In these circumstances when rationality and common sense are missing in action, immigration poses an impossible dilemma: what to do with millions who have integrated into U.S. society yet have broken the law in entering the United States illegally? A tragedy can be seen as a clash to two justified views. These people broke the law. That cannot be ignored. Yet the vast majority of these individuals are now part of the U.S. polity. The future is self-evident. This dilemma will only worsen as will virtually all political issues on which the nation is divided. In these incendiary conditions, if the Insurrection Act were wrongly invoked, the effect will likely provoke the rebellion it is meant to prevent. So beware America. Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist; senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council, chairman of a private company, and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. His next book, co-written with General The Lord David Richards, former U.K. chief of defense and due out next year, is Who Thinks Wins: Preventing Strategic Catastrophe. The writer can be reached on X @harlankullman.
