Conclave Day 2: Cardinals have 4 chances to elect a new pope. Live updates
The Roman Catholic cardinals charged with electing the next pontiff were gathering in Vatican City for a second day Thursday, seeking the two-thirds majority required to name a successor to Pope Francis.
∎ Day 2 begins with Mass at in the Pauline Chapel, followed by a midmorning prayer in the Sistine Chapel, where the cardinals are shut off from the world for the secretive voting that will result in new leadership for the world's 1.4 billion Roman Catholics.
∎ Two votes are allowed in the morning. If no pope is elected the cardinals take a lengthy lunch break.
∎ The cardinals then return and can vote twice more. If no one is elected, they are expected to wrap up for the day at about 7:30 p.m. local time − 1:30 p.m. ET.
The second day of the conclave came after the first vote Wednesday failed to name a successor to Francis Darkness had already fallen over Rome on Wednesday when black smoke rose from the chimney of the iconic Sistine Chapel, watched by thousands in a packed St. Peter's Square.
Some traditions are timeless − black smoke from the chimney after a vote means no candidate has received the necessary votes. White smoke means a new pope has been elected.
And the ban on communicating with outsiders, which dates to medieval times, remains. Nowadays, however, the Vatican has taken high-tech measures to ensure secrecy. No cellphones are allowed, and the technology sweep of the chapel takes place to ensure there are no recording devices. Jamming devices are also used.
A battle for the soul of the church: What's at stake in conclave this week
What social and geopolitical challenges will the next pope face?
As the conclave gathers to elect a new pope, what social and geopolitical challenges around the world will the new pontiff need to navigate?
Some of the cardinals frequently mentioned as candidates to succeed Francis include non-Italians Luis Antonio Tagle, 67, of the Philippines, a liberal sometimes referred to as "Francis 2," France's Jean-Marc Aveline, Archbishop of Marseille, and Peter Erdo, 72, of Hungary, who is considered a favorite among the more conservative cardinals.
There have been 266 popes, and 217 of the have been Italian. Italy has strong contenders this time, too, including cardinals Pietro Parolin, 70, the Vatican Secretary of State who is considered a moderate, Pierbattista Pizzaballa, 60, the patriarch of Jerusalem who once offered to become a hostage of Hamas in return for the release of children, and Matteo Zuppi, 69, a close associate of Francis.
There are more than 250 cardinals, but they must be younger than 80 to serve as electors. Still, a record 133 cardinals from 70 countries are casting votes, up from 115 from 48 nations for the 2013 conclave that elected Francis. The increase in cardinals is a function of Francis' efforts to expand the reach of the church, and one result is that 80% of current cardinals were appointed by him.
Black smoke vs. white smoke: What does each color mean during conclave?
Up to four rounds of voting can take place each day. There is no set time limit for the conclave, but recent conclaves have lasted only a few days. Since 1846, cardinals have taken two to five days to make decisions on the past 12 popes.
It was not always that fast. After Pope Clement IV died in November 1268, cardinals met in Viterbo, Italy, about 68 miles from Rome, for almost three years. The eventual winner, Gregory X, tightened up conclave rules. The longest conclave in modern times, in 1903, ended when Pope Pius X was chosen after five days.
A day before electors were sequestered to begin the conclave, an American cardinal shed light on the secretive process of electing a new pope, saying this one could take three or four days in part because there are many worthy candidates.
New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, one of 10 U.S. cardinals participating in the vote, told SiriusXM's Catholic Channel on Tuesday that participants consult with each other to learn more about contenders they might not know well.
'We're not horse trading here,'' Dolan said. 'We're saying, 'Tell me about this guy. You're from Latin America. Go through the list of bishops. Tell me some of these fellas. Am I right to be enchanted by this guy?''
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
a minute ago
- USA Today
'Blatant deception': Hamas rejects Israel's Gaza relocation plan
CAIRO, Aug 17 (Reuters) - Palestinian militant group Hamas said on Sunday that Israel's plan to relocate residents from Gaza City constitutes a "new wave of genocide and displacement" for hundreds of thousands of residents in the area. The group said the planned deployment of tents and other shelter equipment by Israel into southern Gaza was a "blatant deception". The Israeli military has said it is preparing to provide tents and other equipment starting from Sunday ahead of its plan to relocate residents from combat zones to the south of the enclave "to ensure their safety". Hamas said in a statement that the deployment of tents under the guise of humanitarian purposes is a blatant deception intended to "cover up a brutal crime that the occupation forces prepare to execute". More: Israelis stage nationwide protests to demand end to Gaza war and release of hostages Israel said earlier this month that it intended to launch a new offensive to seize control of northern Gaza City, the enclave's largest urban centre. The plan has raised international alarm over the fate of the demolished strip, which is home to about 2.2 million people. The war began when Hamas attacked southern Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli authorities. About 20 of the remaining 50 hostages in Gaza are believed to be still alive. Israel's subsequent military assault against Hamas has killed over 61,000 Palestinians, Gaza's health ministry says. It has also caused a hunger crisis, internally displaced most of Gaza's population and left much of the enclave in ruins. (Reporting by Nidal Al-Mughrabi; Writing by Menna Alaa El-Din;Editing by Tomasz Janowski and Sharon Singleton)
Time Magazine
5 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Why Israel—And Trump—Should Support Palestinian Statehood
Several states, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have announced that they will follow France's Emmanuel Macron, in recognizing a Palestinian state during the United Nations General Assembly session next month. This development represents a meaningful shift that could help create new momentum toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while undercutting the ideology of violent resistance espoused by Hamas and other jihadist organizations. More major Western actors should join the move to recognize a Palestinian state. Of course, the vision of two states living side by side is not new. In 1947, the United Nations voted to establish two states for two peoples—one Jewish, one Arab—subject to a list of conditions. Arab leaders rejected the partition plan, while Israel was founded shortly thereafter. To-date, 147 UN member states out of 193 have recognized Palestine, with 114 maintaining full diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority. Yet most leading Western democracies have withheld recognition until recently, despite publicly supporting a two-state solution. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), the internationally recognized representative of the Palestinian people, acknowledged Israel's right to exist as far back as 1988—an acknowledgment reaffirmed during the Oslo process and embedded in the Arab Peace Initiative. In contrast, Israel has never recognized a Palestinian state, not even during negotiations ostensibly aimed at achieving that outcome. It is this imbalance that the move initiated by France, which the Israeli government opposes, begins to address. The diplomatic momentum created by major Western nations could serve as a tipping point. It would place them at the forefront of a global consensus already reflected in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Oslo Accords, the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 and President Donald Trump's 2020 Middle East peace plan. Regrettably, the Trump Administration has dismissed these nations' statements. As patriotic Israelis, we believe that a two-state-for-two-people solution remains the only viable path to peace and long-term security for both Israelis and Palestinians. Instead of a knee-jerk rejection of France's diplomatic initiative, Israel should better use it and subsequent announcements to its advantage to bolster Israel's national security and international standing. We welcome the growing international recognition for several reasons. First, it sends a powerful message to extremists on both sides: maximalist visions of exclusive sovereignty over the entire land are not legitimate and will not be endorsed by the international community. Second, the recognition provides a constructive ideological counterweight to Hamas and other jihadist organizations. Military action alone cannot defeat extremism; it must be paired with a credible, alternative political vision. Recognizing Palestine as a state presents a peaceful and realistic pathway that undermines the narrative of violent resistance and gives hope to Palestinians seeking a diplomatic solution. As such, an alternative becomes a reality, it cannot help but strengthen the moderate forces within the Palestinian society, marginalize the extremists, and increase security. At the same time, Israel should maintain responsibility for its own security and continue its struggle against Hamas and other Jihadist groups. Third, Palestinian statehood recognition has implications for future negotiations—particularly on the contentious issue of Palestinian refugees. A recognized Palestinian state provides a clear solution for the absorption and rehabilitation of refugees, helping resolve one of the most complex and emotional aspects of the conflict. Fourth, this front-loaded recognition can lead to the establishment of a clear border between Israelis and Palestinians, which could enhance security in the respective states. Once this border is delineated, national self-determination within agreed borders would carry with it the responsibility to reduce violence. Fifth, spoilers such as terrorism, violence, settlement expansion, reciprocal delegitimization, have all had the upper hand in the last decade-and-a-half, absent negotiations. Following the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre and the ensuing Gaza war, respective narratives moved farther away from one another. Beginning future talks with the mutual recognition of Palestinian statehood would help narrow the gaps and build more resilient negotiations. Finally, the fact that Saudi Arabia joined France in calling on countries at the United Nations to support a declaration that outlines "tangible, timebound, and irreversible steps" towards implementing a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians adds another layer of strategic importance. It complicates the already expressed opposition from President Trump, because of the U.S. geopolitical interests in Riyadh. In addition, it reinforces the framework of the Arab Peace Initiative, first introduced by the Saudis, which envisions a comprehensive regional peace. This framework is vital for the future of Gaza, which together with the West Bank will form the Palestinian State, particularly for Gaza's post-war reconstruction and humanitarian recovery, and the release of hostages. And regionally, without a credible path to Palestinian statehood, there will be no normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and the region will remain volatile. The peace process to date has been hampered by ambiguity about its ultimate goal: two states for two peoples. The outcome of a secure Jewish-democratic Israel and a functioning, though demilitarized, Palestinian state, should be clearly enunciated, and it should be implemented through a gradual, performance-benchmarked process. The recognition of Palestine, joined by other major Western actors, could mark a turning point in offering a constructive roadmap for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It would help transition from a conflict-management approach, which has brought pain and suffering to both peoples, to conflict resolution. If embraced and expanded by other international actors, this move could prompt a reinvigorated global effort to shape a new reality of coexistence, peace, and security in the Middle East. President Trump should not only drop his opposition to this move; he should assume leadership of it.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Oh no! Hypocritical celebrities abandon US, blaming Trump. What will we do now?
If celebrities, or anyone else, want to flee the US because a Republican is president, by all means, good riddance. I've never been so mad at a political party or a politician that I felt like leaving my country. I love America too much to even consider it. But a slew of celebrities have done that. Late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel just announced during an appearance on the "The Sarah Silverman Podcast" on Aug. 7 that he obtained Italian citizenship. Kimmel alluded that President Donald Trump and the political climate he's created were contributing factors. It's not clear if Kimmel plans to move to Italy full time. "What's going on is as bad as you thought it was going to be," Kimmel said to Silverman during the podcast. "Way worse," Silverman said. "It's so much worse. It's just unbelievable," Kimmel said about America's political climate. "Like I feel like it's probably even worse than he would like it to be." Kimmel joins other celebrities who fled America and blame Trump Kimmel joins several high-profile celebrities who have sought refuge elsewhere because of Trump. It's a fascinating example of how self-aggrandizement, celebrity and perception do not always equate to reality, common sense and gratitude. If anything, it fuels hypocrisy. People magazine reported in 2024 that the comedian and former daytime talk show host Ellen DeGeneres and her wife, Portia de Rossi, had moved to England. DeGeneres confirmed in July that Trump's return to the White House prompted her move across the Atlantic. In March, comedian Rosie O'Donnell announced in a TikTok video that she moved to Ireland with her child. She's working on obtaining Irish citizenship. In the video, she said she moved because she didn't think she'd have equal rights under Trump. If these celebrities' ties to our nation were so weak that they could be severed because Americans elected a Republican president, how much did they care about the United States to begin with? Were they ever really freedom-loving Americans? Subscribe to my newsletterhere and get exclusive access to columns like this one – before anyone else Celebrities who abandon the US are hypocrites Celebrities are often hypocritical when it comes to their real lives, political beliefs and their careers. They'll claim they're anti-gun but make films with jarring violence and hire armed security for themselves. They'll tell other Americans how to vote − and it's mostly for Democrats − but live a lifestyle free of the economic and financial pressures that regular Americans face. Celebrities such as Miley Cyrus, Amy Schumer, Cher and Whoopi Goldberg threatened to leave America if Trump got elected in 2016, but they are still here. Perhaps they at least realize how silly it is to abandon their country because millions of their fellow citizens democratically elected a Republican into office. Perhaps they realized how hypocritical it was to live a life of luxury, thanks to America's free market principles, and then spit in its face because an election didn't go the way they wanted. When O'Donnell says she fled to Ireland out of fear that Americans like her would lose their rights, what does that really mean? Trump has signed no executive orders and Congress has passed no laws that strip any Americans of their fundamental rights. Federal anti-discrimination laws remain in place to protect all Americans, including the LGBTQ+ community. It's strange for someone like Kimmel, with a reported net worth of about $50 million, to flee the United States because of a supposedly difficult political environment. He still has a platform on network TV to ridicule Trump and other conservatives who don't support Kimmel's ultraprogressive opinions. Trump, meanwhile, is doing what 77 million voters said they wanted in November. He's secured the southern border, brought illegal immigration under control, bolstered the economy and is working to secure peace in the Middle East and Ukraine. If celebrities, or anyone else, want to flee the United States because a Republican is president, by all means, good riddance. If they can't appreciate the country that paved the way for their wealth and fame, and they want to believe they are victims of a difficult political climate, they deserve to wallow in their hypocrisy in a country that is a distant second to America's greatness. Nicole Russell is a columnist at USA TODAY and a mother of four who lives in Texas. Contact her at nrussell@ and follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @russell_nm. Sign up for her weekly newsletter, The Right Track, here.
