The dope on the Pope
Anticipation gripped the Catholic world Thursday as the cardinals tasked with choosing a new pope prepared to retreat behind the heavy doors of the Vatican's Sistine Chapel for their second day of voting.
The Catholic Church now has its newest pope, after Cardinal Robert Prevost was elected the 267th pontiff, becoming Pope Leo XIV.
Many Catholics are hoping the American will act as a unifying figure, bringing together different factions.
Seen as a moderate with some progressive stances, the new pope is not expected to break significantly from the approach set by the late Pope Francis.
On 7 May, 133 cardinals filed into the Sistine Chapel to begin their voting. In the late afternoon on 8 May, white smoke billowed out from the chapel's chimney, signalling the selection of a new pope after the fourth round of voting.
With voting stretching over just two days, this year's conclave is comparable in length to those in the most recent past.
Prior to the mid-19th century, it was typical for conclaves to extend over weeks or even months. The 1740 conclave that elected Pope Benedict XIV, for example, lasted 181 days.
Some of the very first conclaves, such as the ones beginning in 1268 and 1292, even lasted more than two years.
In the past two centuries, however, conclaves have become much shorter affairs. The conclaves that elected Pope Francis in 2013 and Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 both lasted just two days, while Pope John Paul II's conclave in 1978 was three days.
"Usually, we get a short one because, in some ways, there's an obvious candidate to succeed," said Professor James Kelly, an associate professor in the history of Catholicism at Durham University.
In contrast, in modern times, a longer conclave has typically suggested there were multiple candidates being considered by the cardinals, added Prof Kelly.
Although quite a few names were discussed as possible contenders prior to the conclave, it's clear that the cardinals came to a decision fairly quickly.
"Most cardinals are sensitive to media speculation and would worry about the PR implications of a longer conclave," said Donald Prudlo, a professor of Catholic studies at the University of Tulsa.
The 69-year-old American begins his papacy slightly older than the average pope since the start of the 18th century.
Popes have typically started the role anywhere from early 50s to late 70s, with the mean age being 65.
Fun fact: Popes on average begin their papacy at age 65
The youngest pope since the 16th century shares a name with the newly-elected pontiff. Leo X, who became pope aged 37, was even younger than Jude Law's fictional character Pope Pius XIII in the 2016 television drama The Young Pope.
Despite his youthful age, Pope Leo X's papacy was unexpectedly cut short after he died at 45, his pontificate lasting less than nine years.
Another unusually young pope was Clement VII, who began his papacy at the age of 44 in 1523. He served for just over a decade, during which time King Henry VIII broke away to establish the Church of England after the pontiff refused to annul the monarch's marriage to Catherine of Aragon.
Born in Chicago, Robert Prevost is the first US pope, the first to come from North America, and the second from the Americas.
Until Pope Francis was elected in 2013, all popes since Pope Zachary in 741 had been European.
Fun fact: Over three-quarters of popes were born within the boundaries of modern-day Italy
Although Robert Prevost was born in the United States, he served in Peru for many years and obtained Peruvian citizenship alongside his American passport in 2015.
As the number of Catholics from continents like South America and Africa has risen, speculation was rife that the cardinals may yet again select a pope from outside Europe as a recognition of the increasing diversity of the church.
With the selection of Pope Leo XIV, these rumblings have been proven true.
Fun fact: The Global Catholic population grew most in Africa & the Americas under Pope Francis
The choice of a pope from outside Europe was likely helped by the efforts of the former pontiff, Pope Francis, to diversify the College of Cardinals. Until Francis appointed more cardinals from other continents, most had always been from Europe.
And cardinals appointed by Francis made up most of those eligible to vote in this year's conclave. Only those younger than 80 years old when the papal seat became vacant could act as "cardinal-electors".
Although there are currently 252 living cardinals, only 135 were eligible as voters, with two absent, leaving 133 cardinals who cast their votes.
Robert Prevost has selected the papal name of Leo XIV, one with a long history among his predecessors.
The most recent pope to use the same papal name was Pope Leo XIII, a progressive pontiff who served from 1878 to 1903.
Among all past popes, the most common papal name has been John, popular for its associations with several key Christian figures, including John the Apostle and John the Baptist. After John, the most common names have been Gregory and Benedict.
Papal names have almost always been taken from past popes or well-known saints. The one name the new pope will almost certainly not have considered, however, is Peter. Saint Peter was the first supreme pontiff of Rome and apostle of Jesus, according to Christian belief.
Taking the name would add the "pressure of expectation," explained Prof Kelly. "You don't want to follow the lead apostle. Who wants to be Peter the second? You know you're never going to quite live up to it."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
5 hours ago
- eNCA
US debt market crisis looming, JPMorgan chief warns
SAN FRANCISCO - JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon voiced concern at the risk of a looming US debt market crisis sparked by the Trump administration's economic policies. "It's a big deal. It is a real problem," Dimon told Maria Bartiromo on FOX Business Network's "Mornings with Maria" show, according to an excerpt of the interview that will air in full Monday. "The bond market is going to have a tough time. I don't know if it's six months or six years," he said. Dimon cautioned that once investors become aware of the impact of rising debt levels, interest rates would skyrocket and markets would be disrupted -- a dangerous scenario for the world's biggest economy. "People vote with their feet," he stressed. Investors "are going to be looking at the country, the rule of law, the inflation rates, the central bank policies," he said, warning that "if people decide that the US dollar isn't the place to be," financing US debt will become more expensive. Historically, the United States has been able to rely on market appetite for low-interest US Treasury bonds to support its economy. Yields briefly climbed last week, amid concerns about President Donald Trump's divisive budget plan. The plan would, among other things, extend the gigantic tax breaks introduced during Trump's first term, spurring fears of a ballooning federal deficit. In mid-May, for the first time ever, the United States lost its triple-A credit rating from Moody's. When it announced the downgrade to Aa1, the ratings agency warned that it expects US federal deficits to widen dramatically over the next decade. The White House's back-and-forth announcements of towering tariffs slapped on countries around the world are also creating considerable uncertainty and thus market volatility. Dimon already warned in April of "considerable turbulence" facing the American economy, pointing to the impact of tariffs, trade wars, inflation and budget deficits. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Sunday downplayed Dimon's predictions of a debt market crisis. "I've known Jamie a long time, and for his entire career he's made predictions like this," Bessent said during an interview on CBS. "Fortunately, not all of them have come true." Bessent acknowledged that he "was concerned about the level of debt." But he said "the deficit this year is going to be lower than the deficit last year, and in two years, it will be lower again."
eNCA
5 hours ago
- eNCA
Trump offers no rest for lifelong US activist couple
MILWAUKEE - They've lost count of how many times they've been arrested, but even with a combined age of 180 years, American couple Joseph and Joyce Ellwanger are far from hanging up their activist boots. The pair, who joined the US civil rights rallies in the 1960s, hope protesting will again pay off against Donald Trump, whose right-wing agenda has pushed the limits of presidential power. "Inaction and silence do not bring about change," 92-year-old Joseph, who uses a walker, told AFP at a rally near Milwaukee in late April. He was among a few hundred people protesting the FBI's arrest of Judge Hannah Dugan, who is accused of helping an undocumented man in her court evade migration authorities. By his side -- as always -- was Joyce, 88, carrying a sign reading "Hands Off Hannah." They are certain that protesting does make a difference, despite some Americans feeling despondent about opposing Trump in his second term. "The struggle for justice has always had so much pushback and difficulty that it almost always appeared as though we'll never win," Joseph said. "How did slavery end? How did Jim Crow end? How did women get the right to vote? It was the resilience and determination of people who would not give up," he added. "Change does happen." The couple, who have been married for more than 60 years, can certainly speak from experience when it comes to protesting. AFP | Jamie Kelter Davis Joseph took part in strategy meetings with Martin Luther King Jr -- the only white religious leader to do so -- after he became pastor of an all-Black church in Alabama at the age of 25. He also joined King in the five-day, 54-mile march from Selma to Montgomery in 1965, which historians consider a pivotal moment in the US civil rights movement. Joyce, meanwhile, was jailed for 50 days after she rallied against the US military training of soldiers from El Salvador in the 1980s. Other causes taken up by the couple included opposing the Iraq war in the early 2000s. "You do what you have to do. You don't let them stop you just because they put up a blockade. You go around it," Joyce told AFP. - 'We'll do our part' - Joseph admitted he would like to slow down, noting the only time he and his wife unplug is on Sunday evening when they do a Zoom call with their three adult children. But Trump has kept them active with his sweeping executive actions -- including crackdowns on undocumented migrants and on foreign students protesting at US universities. AFP | Jamie Kelter Davis The threats to younger protesters are particularly concerning for Joyce, who compared those demonstrating today to the students on the streets during the 1960s. "They've been very non-violent, and to me, that's the most important part," she said. Joyce also acknowledged the couple likely won't live to see every fight to the end, but insisted they still had a role to play. "We're standing on the shoulders of people who have built the justice movement and who have brought things forward. So, we'll do our part," she said. Joyce added that she and Joseph would be protesting again on June 14 as part of the national "No Kings" rally against Trump. "More people are taking to the streets, we will also be in the streets," she said.
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Same same — how State Capture has become SA's greatest export
As Trump wipes away American history and redoubles down on thought crimes, he'd be horrified to know that the ANC has done it better, which is to say worse. Of all the ANC's masterstrokes — and believe it or not, there have been a few — the capture (and subsequent erasure) of history is perhaps its most successful. Without a past, there is no future — just an eternal now, a limbo that represents political stasis. And as dynamic as South Africa may seem if you have your nose jammed in the news, this is indeed a country of stasis, a country where new ideas and genuine transformation die before they are born. Because the ANC has captured history — it is, after all, the 'liberation party', and that's all there is to know — there is no point in revising history, because it's meant to be forgotten. Take the Zondo Commission. Remember that billion-rand boondoggle? Four volumes stuffed with the nightmare legacy of Zuma era corruption, and the results? Not much. The complaints are simple: all of that taxpayer money blown, and not a single meaningful prosecution. But that is to miss the point. As the political commentator and playwright Richard Calland has noted, 'State Capture was something that was really significant. And yet there was a real danger that we moved on too fast from it, and the lessons were not learned, were not digested. And then all the work that was done to defend democracy was kind of wasted. And it was a huge effort to protect the institutions and the rule of law. And I think, although full accountability hasn't happened yet, that it was a significant effort to defend public democracy from private State Capture.' And yet, the Zondo Commission Report should be required reading — the first thing placed in the hands of a kid hitting Grade Zero, in picture-book form. This, after all, is the story of how the world is hijacked. It's an epic, a fairytale, a parable. It's also universally applicable, at least as far as democracies are concerned. The Zondo Commission tells a linear story: how a state is captured, and corruption formalised, by a norm-breaking executive and its private sector enablers. President Jacob Zuma, who was manifestly and obviously a thief, became a viable candidate to replace the establishment figure Thabo Mbeki because he wasn't Thabo Mbeki. His shortcomings were overlooked because it was time for change. The change he offered — a populist spin on African nationalism — was the only thing that would keep the ANC, and therefore the country, from imploding. Or so we were told. In educational and intellectual terms, Zuma was not a Harvard University business school graduate. But he was at least as unethical and rapacious as one. A spy by (forced) vocation, he employed his louche paranoia as a tool against his enemies. He effortlessly subverted the State Security Agency, using it as a money funnel and a battering ram to enrich his cronies and undermine his enemies. His benefactors were brought into the fold to act as middlemen in the flow of funds from the state to state-owned enterprises and their private sector contractees. Then, Zuma went for the National Prosecuting Authority, and followed that up with attacks on other law enforcement agencies — a very simple procedure, given that the executive has the final say over who runs these institutions. He made foolish choices to head the Public Protector's office and the Constitutional Court, but they were his choices to make. By doing this, he signalled that it was open season for corruption, and that shame no longer had a role to play in moderating political behaviour in South Africa. There are other forebears of the 21st-century style of kleptocratic state vandalism. They include Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, Viktor Orbán in Hungary and, of course, the OG, Vladimir Putin in Russia. But no other country has 4,000 pages of testimony breaking down exactly how the system works. In this, the Zondo Commission Report is perhaps the most important piece of political literature written in the past 25 years. And outside of Ferial Haffajee, how many South Africans, let alone foreign political observers or analysts, have read the whole thing? From a certain perspective, Zondo is a blueprint for how an empowered and unembarrassable executive performs a coup on his or her own country. There are clues in Zondo for how the 21st century has gone so horribly wrong, and hints at how to fix it. *** If liberal Americans knew what they were doing — and they don't — they'd see South Africa as a bellwether, as a warning. This isn't a Zuma equals Trump comparative thing — this goes far beyond individual personalities. Instead, they'd understand how corruption becomes entrenched — how it underpins, and then entirely supplants, ideology. As in South Africa, in the United States, special interests long ago hijacked anything resembling a functioning democracy. Here, the Guptas were avatars for private parasites latching on to the state and leeching it dry. In the US, corruption was driven through the Supreme Court, which has proved almost gleefully amenable. The biggest moment was the Citizens United ruling in 2008, which effectively allowed unlimited corporate spending in election campaigns. From there, it's been relatively smooth sailing. In recent years, while much of the focus was on the repeal of Roe v Wade and the end of female bodily autonomy, Trump's Supreme Court has done two things. First, it's allowed the executive almost monarchical power. And second, it's made bribery — or, rather, 'gratuities' — legal. You don't have to be a genius to see how this leads to a culture of extreme corruption, and it has. The end of Joe Biden's disastrous term led to a slew of pre-pardons of family members, which slithered into Trump 2 and the Zuma-like strip-down of the state. Congress, ostensibly a lawmaking body, stares on gape-mouthed as Trump rewrites the American order in the Oval Office. The lower courts have held up what might be considered the rule of law, but at this point it's largely vestigial. Trump is so empowered that he's now very literally rewarding corruption. Take the case of Paul Walczak, a medical executive and tax cheat who made an application for a full pardon, which Trump ignored. Until Walczak's mother showed up at a million-dollar-a-plate fundraising dinner, where she hobnobbed with the Republican glitterati and scored her son a get-out-of-jail-free card. It's pay to play, and there's no longer anything ambiguous about it. *** Zuma's genius, as with Trump and his minions, is to make graft ideological. The infamous Bell Pottinger misinformation campaign, which reintroduced White Monopoly Capital into the South African parlance, situated corruption and anti-constitutionalism as a transformation project — as a means to empower the previously unempowered. In essence, this was a 'screw the elite' project, which conveniently ignored the facts of power distribution in South Africa, while exploiting the very real economic disparities. Likewise, the Trump ideology comes down to little more than Fuck The Libs. This is a deplorable uprising, the upending of snooty Harvard/Yale/Columbia shitlibs (which again ignores the specifics of who is currently in power in the US). This is emotion as ideology, a vacuous project of rage-baiting driven by the neo-Bell Pottingers on the likes of Elon Musk's X. 'So loud and quiet at once, ideology becomes a substitute for mood,' wrote the novelist Joshua Cohen. And the mood in the US is dark and rebarbative. The capture of the state by special interests — by the billionaire class and the corporations who will exclusively benefit from the revolution under way — is misinterpreted as fascism. But this is silly. The performance of authoritarianism is secondary to the flood-the-zone-with-sewage approach to governance, which hides the formalisation of corruption. No one bothered to call Zuma a fascist — it simply didn't matter. He worked for his family and his friends and benefactors, and no one else. It was a simpler time. It should hopefully be obvious that rebuilding a functioning state in the wake of State Capture is nearly impossible. The centralisation of corruption under Big Men like Zuma (and Trump) inevitably gives way to a violent contestation when they leave office. This fragmentation is lethal and destabilising, and it breeds nostalgia for the good old days of the God King. Which is where South Africa finds itself now. As Trump wipes away American history and redoubles down on thought crimes, he'd be horrified to know that the ANC has done it better, which is to say worse. The rest of the world should take note: it's not fun digging out from under ideology-as-mood. Very little is left to build with. But it always pays to remember that State Capture is an elite project, prosecuted from the top, that benefits the wealthy and powerful. The rest of us are just suckers and cannon fodder. DM
