The road to the papacy runs through DC, says Vatican expert
The Brief
Vatican expert Rocco Palmo highlights Pope Francis's significant impact on Catholic life in Washington, including appointing two archbishops.
Cardinals Wilton Gregory and Robert McElroy, both appointed by Francis, are eligible to vote for the next pope.
Palmo emphasizes the unique connection between the U.S. capital and the papacy, especially following Francis's recent meeting with Vice President Vance.
WASHINGTON - Vatican expert Rocco Palmo joined FOX 5 on Monday to discuss the death of Pope Francis, and how he believes the road to the papacy, uniquely for the U.S., runs through Washington.
READ MORE: Live updates: Pope Francis, first Latin American pontiff, dies at 88
What they're saying
Palmo says Pope Francis " has had an outsize impact on Catholic life in the capital."
"He's named two archbishops there, the most recent of whom, Cardinal McElroy just arrived, was installed in March. But significantly, and this is going to be one of the top line things on any American legacy piece for Francis, was the appointment and then elevation to Cardinal of Cardinal Wilton Gregory, who just retired, who became the first African-American, the first non-white Cardinal of any kind in this country," said Palmo.
Palmo says both Cardinal Gregory and Cardinal McElroy are eligible to vote for a new pope.
READ MORE: How is a new pope chosen? All about the conclaves
"We could say that between that and, again, the political situation hours after the late Holy Father met Vice President Vance, really the road to the papacy, uniquely for the U.S., runs through Washington," said Palmo.
READ MORE: Death of Pope Francis: What to know about his funeral and burial
Pope Francis died on Easter Monday.
Cardinal Angelo Comastri led Easter Mass in St. Peter's Square on Sunday. Pope Francis made an appearance on the balcony of St. Peter's Pasilica to give a blessing.
"If this was going to happen, he was going on his own terms and he wouldn't let his condition keep him from pushing himself too hard," said Palmo. "Consistent with who he is and what he wanted, he died with his boots on. Being out among the crowd, that was the first time he'd been in the popemobile since."
READ MORE: Is Pope Benedict still alive?
The election of a new pope is a centuries-old tradition, following a series of choreographed rules and rituals.
After a pope dies or resigns, the dean of the College of Cardinals organizes secret meetings where cardinals discuss the church's needs and the qualities a future pope must have. Then, the dean organizes the conclave balloting in the Sistine Chapel.
"You have the biggest group of electors going in that we'll ever have, 138. Until Francis, the limit was kept by law at 120. He chose to expand it," said Palmo. "Now they have to find 20 more bedrooms for cardinals during the conclave while sealing them away from the world. You know, everybody has to give up their phones, their electronic devices, their signal jammers put in under the Sistine Chapel to keep it from being bugged."
The conclave must begin within 15 to 20 days from today.
"The Cardinals all have to be there, obviously, for a funeral, which again, probably Friday, Saturday or Monday next week," said Palmo.
The Source
Information in this article comes from a FOX 5 interview with Vatican expert Rocco Palmo.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
5 minutes ago
- CNN
DHS halts ‘Quiet Skies' program following Republican claims it was used against political opponents
A program designed to flag travelers for potential extra screening and monitoring at airports and on airplanes will be discontinued, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Thursday. The program recently came under attack from Republicans after it was revealed that prior to her appointment to lead the US Intelligence Community, Tulsi Gabbard was temporarily placed on the 'Quiet Skies' list – a process that can occur because of a number of different factors, including travel patterns. Being on the list does not mean an individual is suspected or accused of wrongdoing. Quiet Skies has long been the source of negative publicity for TSA, according to a former US official. But officials have seen it as valuable because it allows the agency to order extra security checks for certain people based on specific intelligence. 'It is clear that the Quiet Skies program was used as a political rolodex of the Biden Administration — weaponized against its political foes and exploited to benefit their well-heeled friends,' Noem said in her statement announcing the program's end. 'I am calling for a Congressional investigation to unearth further corruption at the expense of the American people and the undermining of US national security.' As CNN previously reported, Gabbard was quickly removed from the list after going public last year with claims she had been added to a 'secret terror watchlist' – saying she was placed on the list for criticizing then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris. US officials told CNN that to have a nominee for a top position — much less the director of national intelligence — placed on a government watchlist of any kind was highly unusual, if not unprecedented. It remains unclear why Gabbard was placed on the list and subsequently removed. The Quiet Skies algorithm looks at travel patterns, foreign connections and other data in a variety of government holdings, and if triggered, leads to additional security screening at the airport by Air Marshals. But it is not associated with the FBI's terrorist watch list. Security officials from multiple agencies previously told CNN that the program is known inside the government for having far laxer standards for inclusion. The program was only one part of airport security and other screening lists still exist inside of the department. In a press release Thursday, DHS said the program 'was used to target political opponents and benefit political allies.' 'TSA will continue performing important vetting functions tied to legitimate commercial aviation security threats to both ensure the safety of the American traveler and uphold its statutory obligations,' the department said.
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's travel ban could drive some African nations closer to America's adversaries
Donald Trump's travel ban, a purportedly security-focused measure largely targeting African nations and Muslim-majority countries, underscores his administration's ignorant and potentially destructive approach to a continent with growing global influence. In announcing the ban, Trump said it's meant to ensure the U.S. only allows people to enter who 'do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles.' Whereas the Biden administration took steps to ingratiate itself with African leaders and slough off some of the American paternalism that has driven some African nations closer to Russia and China in recent years, Trump's administration seems to have doubled down on an outmoded strategy of exploitation, conspiratorial brow-beating and ostracism. In just the first few months of Trump's second term, his administration has pressured African nations to permit Elon Musk's Starlink internet service to operate within their borders and has sought to use war-torn nations in Africa — including a country known for its human rights abuses — as landing spots for people booted from the U.S. as part of Trump's mass deportation plan. The president also personally turned the Oval Office into a screening room for bigoted conspiracy theories when he invited the president of South Africa to the White House and then bombarded him with false allegations of 'white genocide' being committed in his country. Needless to say, this hasn't helped the U.S. build on its rapport with African nations. And fundamentally, what that could mean for the U.S. is that a continent full of countries that American officials have pinpointed as crucial partners in our geopolitical strategies related to security and commerce could drift further toward our adversaries. That's certainly the vibe given off by the African Union Commission and its dozens of member states, which denounced Trump's travel ban and warned about its potential impacts. 'The Commission remains concerned about the potential negative impact of such measures on people-to-people ties, educational exchange, commercial engagement, and the broader diplomatic relations that have been carefully nurtured over decades. Africa and the United States share mutual interests in promoting peace, prosperity, and global cooperation,' the commission said in a statement, adding: 'The African Union Commission respectfully calls upon the U.S. Administration to consider adopting a more consultative approach and to engage in constructive dialogue with the countries concerned.' University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers identified one clear way that Trump's travel ban could harm the American economy. 'One obvious economic implication of the latest travel ban is that genuinely international conferences will no longer be held in the U.S.,' he wrote on X. And that may just be the tip of the iceberg. It's also true that the materials used to make batteries in everything from cutting-edge cars to phones and computers most often come from African mines. Which is to say: Trump's cold shoulder toward African nations could have dire consequences for America's future, particularly with regard to the economy and U.S. national security. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If Viewers Love PBS So Much, Let Them Pay for It
Nearly universal support on Capitol Hill for the "big, beautiful bill" is a powerful reminder that Republicans love to run for office on a platform of cutting spending and then immediately betray that promise once they actually have the power to fulfill it. President Donald Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and most of the Republican caucus are working tirelessly to pass a budget that would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit. Virtually the only political figures remaining consistent in their opposition to increased spending are Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.), Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), and Elon Musk, who is currently venting his frustration with Trump on X. Suffice it to say, genuine attempts to cut federal spending are unusual. One bright spot, however, is Trump's move to cut funding to publicly subsidized media: National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Libertarians and conservatives have long wondered why the government is in the business of subsidizing news or children's programming, especially when that programming evinces a pro-liberal bias, as was obviously the case with NPR and its president, Katherine Maher. PBS may be marginally more defensible on its own merits, but in the year 2025, it is simply not the case that the channel is meeting some need that the market fails to provide for. YouTube is brimming with high-quality, free (i.e. advertiser-supported) educational content for kids. If Big Bird is a better product, let him stand on his two legs—people will pay to watch him. Defenders of continued taxpayer support for PBS deploy all sorts of counterarguments. But one new development merits a response. A trio of researchers—Christopher Ali, Hilde Van den Bulck, and Jonathan Kropko—published their study, "An island of trust: public broadcasting in the United States," in which they argue that PBS is an atypically trusted source of information, and thus deserves continued public support. In a writeup of their paper, published by Nieman Lab—Harvard University's investigative journalism foundation—the researchers argue that "Americans trust PBS because it's publicly funded, not in spite of it." "Very little seems to unite Americans these days," the authors write. "Trust in government and public institutions is precipitously low. PBS bucks this trend. It is an 'island of trust' in an ocean of what some call 'post-trust' and others call 'post-truth.' It can be the focal point for a renewed spirit of American public discussions, a commitment to journalism, and a platform to recultivate trust." One issue: The study measured trust in PBS, not among all Americans, but among viewers of PBS. That was the sample: survey respondents who themselves watch PBS. This is hardly a surprising finding—and is not whatsoever grounds for public funding. Regular viewers of Fox News, for instance, place very high levels of trust in Fox News. Does that mean all Americans do? Does it mean that Fox News should receive public funding? One doubts that the researchers would agree with such an argument. In any case, they did not respond to a request for comment. For more on Trump's efforts to defund NPR and PBS, read Reason's Jesse Walker. I am joined by Amber Duke to discuss Elon Musk's understandable outrage over Nazi-salute double standards, the attack on Jewish demonstrators in Colorado, Joy Behar's brilliant campaign advice, Stephen Miller clashing with CNN, and Joe Rogan vs. Bono on the U.S. Agency for International Development. I'm waiting to get my Nintendo Switch 2 until I have more free time on my schedule. Right now, I am playing the Mega Man X Legacy collection, which includes the first four games. I've loved these games since I was a kid, though I had forgotten how steep the difficulty curve is. X-1 is pretty easy overall, but I don't understand how you could possibly find all the hidden power-ups in 2 and 3 without help. I've beaten them before, and I still don't remember where to find everything. The post If Viewers Love PBS So Much, Let Them Pay for It appeared first on
