Here's how a new pope is chosen: Expert explains the conclave ceremony
DENVER (KDVR) — The world continues to watch and wait as 133 cardinals remain sequestered inside the Vatican's Sistine Chapel as the secret conclave ceremony takes place.
They will decide who will succeed Pope Francis as the new leader of the Catholic Church. Black smoke billowed from the Chapel on Wednesday, indicating no pope has been chosen and the voting will continue Thursday morning.
Black smoke rises from Sistine Chapel chimney, conclave doesn't elect pope in first vote
There are 1.4 billion Catholics around the world, but many more are closely following the conclave in anticipation of the impact the new pope will have. FOX31 spoke to Dr. Chris Pramuk, an author and Regis University theology professor, about the conclave process.
'The choosing of a Pope is always a very dramatic reminder of the global reach of the Catholic Church,' he said.
The 133 cardinals must arrive at a two-thirds majority vote to determine who will now lead the Church in a world facing conflict, war and political unrest. Pramuk says Catholics will be looking for consistency in a new leader.
'Francis is a hard act to follow in terms of his personality and his style as a leader, his deep care for the poor, especially for the marginalized,' he said.
As a result of Pope Francis's legacy, this is the most diverse conclave in the church's 2000-year history, with cardinals from 70 countries. Strict protocols ensure the integrity of the selection.
'Literally, the word conclave means 'with a key;' they're locked into the Sistine Chapel with a key to minimize any undue exterior influence,' said Pramuk.
From 'conclave' to 'white smoke,' a glossary of terms used in a papal transition
Pramuk explained the symbolism of black or white smoke emitted from the top of the chapel.
'The ballots are burnt, put in an oven, then ballots once they've been counted, and they add a chemical to create the black smoke if it's not a majority vote,' he said.
Pramuk says the impact of the new Pope will be evident in nations around the world.
'The Pope kind of represents to me the single figure who kind of gives us visual moral guidance in a world that I think today desperately is thirsty for that I think people are looking for signs of hope that goodness is possible,' he said.
The conclave ceremony originated in medieval times. Pramuk tells FOX31 that in the 1800s, there was a conclave that lasted three years due to political pressure. The ceremonies now typically last two to three days.
Pramuk provides more information about the conclave ceremony on the Regis University website.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to FOX31 Denver.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Another unanimous win for religious freedom at the Supreme Court
Is religious freedom a wedge issue? The unanimous agreement between all the justices in a decision just issued by the U.S. Supreme Court suggests the answer is no. The Court's example provides an important corrective to the framing of some commentators and advocacy groups. The facts of this case initially seem unreal — the state of Wisconsin determined that the Catholic Charities Bureau was not 'religious enough' to qualify for a tax exemption available to religious organizations in the state. Piling on, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed because Catholic Charities did not proselytize or exclude non-Catholics from its services. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has now corrected that decision and ruled unanimously that the state cannot prefer one religion over another on the grounds of the church's teachings. The Court's opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She points out, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' The state had denied the exemption to Catholic Charities simply because the group did not follow the practice of some other churches, which proselytize while providing social services and serve only fellow members. Since doing either of these things would violate the beliefs of the organization, it was treated differently from other religious organizations solely because of this belief. Justice Sotomayor's opinion summarizes the legal standard: 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.' The Court rightly concludes that Wisconsin had no compelling reason that would justify this disparate treatment. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Court's opinion and wrote separately to note another problem with the Wisconsin court's opinion. The Court treated Catholic Charities as separate from the local Catholic Diocese. This is contrary to the 'religious perspective' of the church, which is owed deference by the state. Ignoring the church's beliefs violated the First Amendment guarantee 'to religious institutions [of] broad autonomy to conduct their internal affairs and govern themselves.' Religion and claims for religious freedom are sometimes characterized as divisive issues. When a presidential commission on religious freedom was recently created, some commentators charged that this would undermine the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that religious freedom issues need not be divisive. The clear constitutional protection of the right of people of faith to live and of religious organizations to operate consistent with their beliefs is right there in the text of the First Amendment. This is a threshold principle that no government can ignore without endangering the most basic liberties of its citizens. This is especially true given the fact that verbal expressions of personal faith have defined modern protections for freedom of speech, and gatherings of members of organized religion form the foundations for protections of freedom of association. State and federal lawmakers should ensure that their actions are consistent with this guarantee. Additionally, reporters, commentators, politicians and advocacy groups should take note that protecting religious freedom is typically a consensus issue for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose role is to ensure that the First Amendment guarantee is protected in legal disputes. In the 12 religious freedom cases decided since 2015, four have been unanimous and four more have garnered only one or two dissenting votes. There are, obviously, some cases where the justices don't reach consensus, but these cases should not cause us to lose sight of the strong support religious freedom claims typically receive. The Court's support for religious freedom is a bright spot in our current political climate. It demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers of the Bill of Rights in including specific religious exercise protections and vindicates one of the nation's highest aspirations: that people of faith should be free to act on their beliefs without interference or discrimination.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Dems smearing Trump as ‘authoritarian' were oddly quiet over Joe Biden's strongarm diktats
The left's attempts to brand President Donald Trump's deportations and his response to the Los Angeles riots as 'authoritarian' would be downright comical — if they weren't so dangerous. Trump's actions are 'purely authoritarian,' insists Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). Boston Mayor Michelle Wu decries the 'secret police tactics,' while ex-Veep Kamala Harris claims that deploying the National Guard is all about 'stoking fear.' The Intercept's Natasha Lennard warns of a 'full-on authoritarian takeover of the U.S. government.' Please. No such charges flew when President Joe Biden illegally ordered the private sector to make all its workers get vaxxed during COVID. Or when he openly defied the Supreme Court to extend the federal eviction moratorium. Nor when Team Biden was caught using strong-arm tactics to censor speech it didn't like. Progressives saw no fascism in prosecutors using the courts to try to bankrupt and jail Trump as he ran for reelection. Or when Democrats sought to remove his name removed from ballots. Radio silence prevailed, too, when the Biden Justice Department sent FBI agents to raid Mar-a-Lago, Trump's personal residence. And when the Bureau targeted traditional Catholics and parents who opposed DEI and trans policies in their schools. Now Trump is doing exactly what he said he'd do — i.e., deporting illegal immigrants and enforcing the law — and the left screams 'authoritarian!' Please. Progs hate our immigration laws but lack the votes to change them, and so detest Trump's moves to enforce them — and sympathize with the rioters trying to interfere with that enforcement. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters So when the president sticks to his course, they smear him as dictatorial. They've chosen to stand up for the illegal-immigrant rapists, murderers and gangbangers ICE agents are trying to deport, claiming the arrests create 'fear' in their neighborhoods. Sorry, but it's the gangsters, killers and sex offenders who create fear, and most Americans are glad to see Trump get them out their nabes. An RMG Research poll late last month found voters back Trump's immigration policies by a 56%-to-42% margin. An Economist/YouGov study through Thursday had Trump up 51-47. Confusing their left-wing base for the American center, Democrats — from Wu to LA Mayor Karen Bass and California Gov. Gavin Newsom — are attacking Trump for taking an approach voters support. As so their words embolden rioters and fuel violence, infuriating average Americans . . . and handing Trump and the GOP a political gift. They're only further deepening the nation's divides while digging themselves into deeper holes.
Chicago Tribune
5 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
How the Vatican manages money and where Pope Leo XIV might find more
VATICAN CITY — The world's smallest country has a big budget problem. The Vatican doesn't tax its residents or issue bonds. It primarily finances the Catholic Church's central government through donations that have been plunging, ticket sales for the Vatican Museums, as well as income from investments and an underperforming real estate portfolio. The last year the Holy See published a consolidated budget, in 2022, it projected $878 million, with the bulk paying for embassies around the world and Vatican media operations. In recent years, it hasn't been able to cover costs. That leaves Pope Leo XIV facing challenges to drum up the funds needed to pull his city-state out of the red. Anyone can donate money to the Vatican, but the regular sources come in two main forms. Canon law requires bishops around the world to pay an annual fee, with amounts varying and at bishops' discretion 'according to the resources of their dioceses.' U.S. bishops contributed over one-third of the $22 million collected annually under the provision from 2021-2023, according to Vatican data. The other main source of annual donations is more well-known to ordinary Catholics: Peter's Pence, a special collection usually taken on the last Sunday of June. From 2021-2023, individual Catholics in the U.S. gave an average $27 million (23.7 million euros) to Peter's Pence, more than half the global total. American generosity hasn't prevented overall Peter's Pence contributions from cratering. After hitting a high of $101 million in 2006, contributions hovered around $75 million during the 2010's then tanked to $47 million during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, when many churches were closed. Donations remained low in the following years, amid revelations of the Vatican's bungled investment in a London property, a former Harrod's warehouse that it hoped to develop into luxury apartments. The scandal and ensuing trial confirmed that the vast majority of Peter's Pence contributions had funded the Holy See's budgetary shortfalls, not papal charity initiatives as many parishioners had been led to believe. Peter's Pence donations rose slightly in 2023 and Vatican officials expect more growth going forward, in part because there has traditionally been a bump immediately after papal elections. The Vatican bank and the city state's governorate, which controls the museums, also make annual contributions to the pope. As recently as a decade ago, the bank gave the pope around $62.7 million a year to help with the budget. But the amounts have dwindled; the bank gave nothing specifically to the pope in 2023, despite registering a net profit of $34.2 million, according to its financial statements. The governorate's giving has likewise dropped off. Some Vatican officials ask how the Holy See can credibly ask donors to be more generous when its own institutions are holding back. Leo will need to attract donations from outside the U.S., no small task given the different culture of philanthropy, said the Rev. Robert Gahl, director of the Church Management Program at Catholic University of America's business school. He noted that in Europe there is much less of a tradition (and tax advantage) of individual philanthropy, with corporations and government entities doing most of the donating or allocating designated tax dollars. Even more important is leaving behind the 'mendicant mentality' of fundraising to address a particular problem, and instead encouraging Catholics to invest in the church as a project, he said. Speaking right after Leo's installation ceremony in St. Peter's Square, which drew around 200,000 people, Gahl asked: 'Don't you think there were a lot of people there that would have loved to contribute to that and to the pontificate?' In the U.S., donation baskets are passed around at every Sunday Mass. Not so at the Vatican. The Vatican has 4,249 properties in Italy and 1,200 more in London, Paris, Geneva and Lausanne, Switzerland. Only about one-fifth are rented at fair market value, according to the annual report from the APSA patrimony office, which manages them. Some 70% generate no income because they house Vatican or other church offices; the remaining 10% are rented at reduced rents to Vatican employees. In 2023, these properties only generated $39.9 million in profit. Financial analysts have long identified such undervalued real estate as a source of potential revenue. But Ward Fitzgerald, the president of the U.S.-based Papal Foundation, which finances papal charities, said the Vatican should also be willing to sell properties, especially those too expensive to maintain. Many bishops are wrestling with similar downsizing questions as the number of church-going Catholics in parts of the U.S. and Europe shrinks and once-full churches stand empty. Toward that end, the Vatican recently sold the property housing its embassy in Tokyo's high-end Sanbancho neighborhood, near the Imperial Palace, to a developer building a 13-story apartment complex, according to the Kensetsu News trade journal. Yet there has long been institutional reluctance to part with even money-losing properties. Witness the Vatican announcement in 2021 that the cash-strapped Fatebenefratelli Catholic hospital in Rome, run by a religious order, would not be sold. Pope Francis simultaneously created a Vatican fundraising foundation to keep it and other Catholic hospitals afloat. 'They have to come to grips with the fact that they own so much real estate that is not serving the mission of the church,' said Fitzgerald, who built a career in real estate private equity.
