Cardinals begin conclave to elect new pope in majesty of Sistine Chapel
Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo Besungu attends the Holy Mass, celebrated for the election of the new pope, presided over by the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, in St. Peter's Basilica, at the Vatican, May 7, 2025.
Catholic cardinals who will choose the next pope were locked behind the heavy wood doors of the Sistine Chapel on Wednesday, sequestered from the world to elect the man they hope can unite a diverse but divided global Church.
In a ritual dating back to medieval times, 133 cardinal electors walked slowly into the chapel before taking an oath of perpetual secrecy under the gaze of the stern Christ depicted in Michelangelo's Last Judgement fresco, which adorns the chapel.
Archbishop Diego Ravelli, the Vatican's master of ceremonies, then pronounced the Latin command "Extra omnes!" (Everyone out!), telling all those not involved in the conclave to leave.
The chapel's doors were slammed shut, allowing the cardinals to hold their first ballot to look for a successor to Pope Francis, who died last month. Faithful watch a giant screen displaying images of Diego Giovanni Ravelli, Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations, closing the doors of the Sistine chapel as the conclave to elect a new Pope starts, at St Peter's Square in The Vatican, on May 7, 2025.
No pope has been elected on the first day of a conclave for centuries and voting could continue for several days before one man receives the necessary two-thirds majority to become the 267th pontiff.
There will be only one ballot on Wednesday. Thereafter, there can be as many as four votes a day.
During a formal procession into the Sistine Chapel, the cardinals beseeched nearly 100 men and women believed to reside in heaven to pray for them as they prepare to make the momentous decision.
The only expected signal from the cardinals during the conclave will come in the form of smoke from a chimney atop the chapel, as the clerics burn their ballots.
Black smoke will mark an inconclusive vote; white smoke and the pealing of bells will signal that the 1.4-billion-member Church has a new leader. 'Watchful care' over the world
At a Mass in St. Peter's Basilica on Wednesday before entering the conclave, the cardinals prayed that God would help them find a pope who would exercise "watchful care" over the world. People watch a screen in Saint Peter's Square showing Cardinals in the Sistine Chapel, on the first day of the conclave to elect the next pope, as seen from Rome, Italy, May 7, 2025.
In a sermon, Italian Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re told his peers they must set aside "every personal consideration" in choosing the new pontiff and keep in mind "only ... the good of the Church and of humanity".
In recent days, cardinals have offered different assessments of what they are looking for in the next pope.
While some have called for continuity with Francis' vision of greater openness and reform, others have said they want to turn the clock back and embrace traditions. Many have indicated they want a more predictable, measured pontificate.
A record 133 cardinals from 70 countries were expected to enter the Sistine Chapel, up from 115 from 48 nations in the last conclave in 2013 - growth that reflects efforts by Francis during his 12-year reign to extend the reach of the Church.
No clear favourite has emerged, although Italian Cardinal Pietro Parolin and Filipino Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle are considered the front-runners. A general view taken from the cupola of St Peter's basilica shows St Peter's square and Via della Conciliazione, in The Vatican on May 3, 2025. Firefighters installed the chimney atop the Sistine Chapel on May 2, 2025 which will emit white smoke to signal the election of a new pope as preparations proceed just five days before cardinals gather for the conclave.
However, if it quickly becomes obvious that neither can win, votes are likely to shift to other contenders, with the electors possibly coalescing around geography, doctrinal affinity or common languages.
Among other potential candidates are France's Jean-Marc Aveline, Hungary's Peter Erdo, American Robert Prevost and Italy's Pierbattista Pizzaballa.
The cardinal electors are all aged under 80. Re, who cannot take part in the conclave as he is 91, suggested the cardinals should look for a pope who respected the Church's diversity. "Unity does not mean uniformity, but a firm and profound communion in diversity," he said in his sermon.
The average length of the last 10 conclaves was just over three days and none went on for more than five days. The last conclave, which picked Francis in 2013, lasted just two days.
The cardinals will be looking to wrap things up quickly again this time to avoid giving the impression they are divided or that the Church is adrift.
Some 80% of the cardinal electors were appointed by Francis, increasing the possibility that his successor will in some way continue his progressive policies, despite strong pushback from traditionalists.
Among their considerations will be whether they should seek a pope from the global South where congregations are growing, as they did in 2013 with Francis, from Argentina, hand back the reins to Europe or even pick a first U.S. pope.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ukraine's foreign minister will visit Rome to participate in Weimar Plus meeting
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha will visit Rome this week to attend a Weimar Plus-formatted meeting. Source: Heorhii Tykhyi, spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Interfax-Ukraine reports; European Pravda Details: Sybiha will visit Rome to attend the meeting at the invitation of his Italian counterpart, Antonio Tajani. "Minister Andrii Sybiha is scheduled to participate in the Weimar+ format with Ukraine's key European partners. The meeting will take place in Rome this week," Tykhyi said. The foreign minister's spokesperson also stressed that Sybiha will strive to convince those in attendance to increase pressure on Moscow and provide more aid to Ukraine to achieve peace. Background: The European Commission is to present a new package of sanctions against Russia, which includes, among other things, a reduction in the price cap for Russian oil. The Baltic States and Northern Europe have long called for such a step. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Version of Federalism Is a Perverse Death Trap
As on many other policy questions, MAGA doctrine regarding the proper division of power between states and the federal government departs from traditional Republican ideology. For half a century after Richard Nixon declared 'the New Federalism' in August 1969, Republicans echoed Nixon's admonition that responsibility should 'flow from Washington to the States and to the people.' (Nixon actually said 'funds and responsibility,' but President Ronald Reagan took it one step further and killed off Nixon's federal revenue-sharing program.) The New Federalism, later known just as federalism, said that states and cities were closer to the people and therefore ought to take the lead. In practice, federalism was simply a way for Republicans to limit the federal government's responsibilities and, eventually, its expenses. The Trump administration's view of the proper division of state and federal responsibility is less consistent than traditional federalism. That's amply evident from Trump's diverging policies regarding immigration protests in Los Angeles and the start of hurricane season along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The only unifying principle I see is 'Do whatever maximizes the likelihood of physical harm.' MAGA's vision of federalism started to come into focus for me last Friday. It was a beautiful day here in Washington, D.C., so I bought myself an Italian hoagie at Bub and Pop's and walked over to Dupont Circle to eat it under a tree in the small grassy park situated there. But when I arrived, the Circle was barricaded. The National Park Service had done this to keep out revelers from WorldPride 2025, a celebratory LBGTQ gathering scheduled the next day—even though, as the Park Service's own website points out, Dupont Circle has been a gathering place for gay pride celebrations for 50 years. The sight of the fencing infuriated me, and I thought: Donald Trump is trying to provoke a riot. It turns out I was off by 3,000 miles. The Park Service agreed in the nick of time to take the Dupont Circle fencing down, perhaps because the Trump White House had shifted its attention to Los Angeles, where demonstrations began Friday against ICE raids on a Home Depot outlet and a clothing store called Ambience. The raids and the counter-demonstrations spread—especially after ICE injured and detained David Huerta, once declared by the Obama White House a 'champion of change,' who, as president of Service Employees International Union California, was there to observe and document one of the raids. Even after that, the Los Angeles Police Department commended protesters for remaining peaceful. President Donald Trump apparently finds such nonviolence unacceptable. To stir the pot, and over the protest of California Governor Gavin Newsom, Trump deployed up to 2000 National Guard troops. Newsom called the maneuver 'purposefully inflammatory,' which it was, and predicted that it would 'only escalate tensions,' which it did. By Sunday night there were full-on riots. On Monday, Trump sent in the Marines. If MAGA federalism dictates that federal intervention is warranted against protests well under the governor's and the metropolitan police's control, it further dictates that federal intervention is not warranted against hurricanes that pretty much by definition aren't under anybody's control (except insofar as they're worsened by man-made climate change). David Richardson, Trump's acting administrator for the Federal Emergency Management Administration, baffled and appalled his staff on June 2 when, on being told that hurricane season had begun, replied that he never knew there was any such thing as a hurricane season. Richardson's spokesperson later tried to excuse this by saying that he was joking, but in fact the real joke is Trump's weirdly indifferent approach to disaster aid. In April, Trump turned down his own former press spokesperson, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, after her state was hit with deadly tornadoes. (She later persuaded him to change his mind.) Visiting North Carolina at the end of January to gauge the state's recovery from last September's Hurricane Helaine, Trump talked about 'maybe getting rid of FEMA.' Richardson's predecessor as acting FEMA administrator, Cameron Hamilton, contradicted Trump last month by telling the House Appropriations Committee that FEMA should not be eliminated. In response, Trump fired him. FEMA's still there, but just barely; it's still reeling from hundreds of staff cuts in February by the White House Office of Personnel Management. Eleven requests to declare this or that state a disaster area have yet to be answered, including two from April; in late May the backlog was 17 requests. Most of the pending requests, weirdly, are from red states—severe storms and flooding in Tennessee, Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky—so you can't accuse Trump of playing favorites. Citing an internal memo, Scott Dance and Brady Dennis of The Washington Post reported this weekend that those FEMA staffers who remain will no longer go door to door after disasters to find victims who might need aid. That job will be left instead to state governments—those little laboratories of democracy. MAGA health care has a skewed federalism angle, too. The 'Big Beautiful' budget bill currently before the Senate would cut Medicaid mostly by screwing around with eligibility—in addition to its spurious work requirement, the bill would repeal a Biden regulation intended to simplify the process of establishing and renewing Medicaid eligibility—but it would also require states to contribute $72 billion more to pay for coverage. That's consistent with Trump's telling the states, during his first term, that they were on their own in dealing with the Covid pandemic. They were, too—but Trump has since threatened to de-fund local schools should they require vaccinations. Intermittently and ineffectually, Trump opposed state Covid mask mandates during his first term. During his second term he opposes them for protesters. But he's copacetic with masks worn by federal ICE enforcers. Then there's nutrition. BBB would impose the largest cut ($300 billion) in the 86-year history of the food stamps program, which is funded by the federal government and administered by the states. But the bill micromanages state work requirements, raising the maximum age up to which food stamp recipients must work from 54 to 64. (Trump also wants to cut $1.3 billion from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.) In state and local affairs, MAGA federalism doesn't favor large federal intervention or small federal intervention. Rather, it favors federal intervention that will worsen safety and health. This applies both to red states and to blue ones; Trump's only partisan loyalty in this area is to the Grim Reaper. Poor nutrition is good. Ineligibility for hospital care is better. Injury or death are best of all. Perhaps instead of MAGA, we should call Trump's variety of federalism MADA, for Make America Dead Again.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
NY state Senate approves doctor-assisted suicide bill, sends it to Hochul's desk for approval
ALBANY – State Senate Democrats passed highly controversial legislation that would allow terminally ill people to take their own lives with the help of doctors in a razor-thin vote Monday — leaving it up to Gov. Kathy Hochul whether to sign it into law. 'This is one of the great social reforms of our state,' state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal (D-Manhattan), the bill's sponsor in the upper chamber, touted at a press conference earlier in the day Monday — putting the measure on the same tier as the legalization of gay marriage. 'This is about personal autonomy, this is about liberty, this is about exercising one's own freedom to control one's body,' Hoylman-Sigal continued. The measure passed 35 to 27, with six Democrats – Senators April Baskin, Siela Bynoe, Cordelle Cleare, Monica Martinez, Roxanne Persaud, and Sam Sutton – voting against it. 'The governor will review the legislation,' a spokesperson for Hochul said. The bill's passage follows a years-long campaign that was fought tooth and nail by a diverse group of critics, including disability rights activists and the Catholic church, as well as many black and Orthodox Jewish communities. 'The Governor still has the opportunity to uphold New York's commitment to suicide prevention, protect vulnerable communities, and affirm that every life—regardless of disability, age, or diagnosis—is worthy of care, dignity, and protection,' The New York Alliance Against Assisted Suicide wrote in a statement following the vote. A Catholic group slammed the bill's passing as 'a dark day for New York' and also called on Hochul to refuse to sign it. 'For the first time in its history, New York is on the verge of authorizing doctors to help their patients commit suicide. Make no mistake – this is only the beginning, and the only person standing between New York and the assisted suicide nightmare unfolding in Canada is Governor Hochul,' Dennis Poust, Executive Director of the New York State Catholic Conference, wrote in a statement. Ahead of the vote, the nearly three-hour debate on the Senate floor got emotional, with several lawmakers holding back tears as they explained their votes. Syracuse-area state Sen. Rachel May (D-Onondaga) shared the story of her late husband, who was receiving morphine in the final stages of his battle with cancer, which he eventually succumbed to at 32 years old. 'I don't know if the last largest dose he took also took his life, but I know that he died in peace,' May said. 'It isn't about controlling the disease or controlling the pain, it's about having control at the end of your life,' she said before voting in favor. Critics fear the legislation lacks critical safeguards over how doctors approve patients looking to receive the prescription for a lethal cocktail of drugs, such as a statutory waiting period, establishing clear chain of custody for the pills, mandating the doctor and recipient meet in-person, and requiring a disclosure that someone indeed used the drugs to take their own life. Under the bill, recipients would need approval from two doctors and a sign-off from two independent witnesses, after which they would receive a prescription for drugs they could use to take their life at a time of their choosing. Doctors also do not have to conduct a mental health screening for each patient, but may refer a patient for one under the legislation. 'I don't think requesting end-of-life medication when an individual is suffering and in pain and dying suggests a mental health condition, if anything, I think it's quite rational,' Hoylman-Sigal said. Hoylman vowed the bill would not lead to such 'unintended consequences.' 'It was a professional organization that provided us crucial guidance, that helped us develop the state-of-the-art safeguards in this legislation that gave my colleagues and the general public, I believe, the assurance that there will not be unintended consequences,' he said. The legislation is referred to by its supporters as the 'Medical Aid in Dying' bill. 'The option of medical aid in dying provides comfort, allowing those who are dying to live their time more fully and peacefully until the end. I am profoundly grateful to Senate Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins for giving her conference the space to have this important and emotional discussion,' Corinne Carey, Senior Campaign Director of Compassion and Choices, the main group driving the effort to pass the bill, wrote in a statement.
