Cardinals Convene for Conclave
The time has come to elect a new pope. On Wednesday, 133 cardinals from around the world gathered in the Vatican to begin their conclave.
The day began in St. Peter's Basilica at 10 a.m. local time, with the Mass for the Election of the Roman Pontiff, led by Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Dean of the College of Cardinals.
At 4:30 p.m. local time, the cardinal electors—cardinals under the age of 80—will meet in the Vatican's Pauline Chapel. They will then process solemnly into the Sistine Chapel, where voting will be held.
All cardinals will take an oath binding them to 'absolute secrecy regarding all details surrounding the election of the new Pope, while promising to rebuff any attempts from outside to sway the election,' according to the Vatican news service.
The oath also commits each elector to fulfilling the Munus Petrinum—the mission of St. Peter, the first pope—if he is elected to be the next supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church.
Although any Catholic man is technically able to assume the role, every pope for the past several hundred years has been a cardinal before his election, and all of the outside speculation about the successor to the late Pope Francis has centered on cardinals.
Related Stories
5/4/2025
4/25/2025
By 3 p.m. on May 7, cell phone coverage in the Vatican will cease. The Vatican Governorate, which administers the world's smallest country, announced that 'all the transmission systems of the mobile phone telecommunications signal, present in the territory of the Vatican City State ... will be deactivated.'
This signal drop is in support of the conclave's security and secrecy requirements. Cell service will be restored 'with the maximum speed permitted by the technology of the mobile operators' after the announcement of the next pope's election.
The two previous conclaves were held in April 2005 and March 2013, making this the third to take place in the age of social media.
Secluded within the walls of the Sistine Chapel, the cardinals will meditate, pray, and formally enter into the voting process.
Conclave Voting Process
Traditionally, the cardinal electors will cast one vote on the first day, and will have four opportunities to vote on each subsequent day.
All voting will be done via hand-written ballots.
Each cardinal will place his vote into a chalice, declaring in Italian, 'Chiamo a testimone Cristo Signore, il quale mi giudicherà, che il mio voto è dato a colui che, secondo Dio, ritengo debba essere eletto.'
Translated, that means, 'I call as my witness Christ the Lord, who will be my judge, that my vote is given to the one whom I believe should be elected according to God.'
The ballots are then counted and read aloud by three 'scrutineers'—cardinals chosen by lot to count the ballots—who ensure the vote was carried out correctly and string the ballots together.
Three 'revisers'—also chosen by lot—then check to ensure the count is accurate.
A two-thirds majority vote is needed to elect the next pope, which accounts for 89 of the 133 cardinal electors.
The ballots are burned after each vote, and that smoke will be used to notify the outside world of the result. White smoke means the necessary majority was reached. Black smoke means that the cardinals are still divided.
Onlookers may see smoke between 7–8 p.m. local time (1-2 p.m. EDT) on May 7, but it's historically unlikely that the conclave's first vote will produce a new pope.
On Thursday, according to the Holy See Press Office, onlookers should anticipate smoke from the first vote of the day around 10:30 a.m. (4:30 a.m. EDT).
If black smoke rises, another vote could be expected after 12 p.m., and then after 5:30 p.m., and then around 7 p.m., if necessary.
If the smoke is still black, the cardinals will return to their apartments at Casa Santa Marta near St. Peter's Basilica, ready to repeat the process on May 9.
If no pope is chosen after three days, voting will be paused for a day of prayer, informal discussions, and a spiritual exhortation led by the senior cardinal deacon.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Brazil held in Ancelotti debut, Paraguay move closer to qualifying
Brazil's Italian head coach Carlo Ancelotti shakes hands with his English assistant Paul Clement, before Thursday's qualifier with Ecuador. (Rodrigo BUENDIA) Carlo Ancelotti's debut as coach of Brazil ended in a goalless draw in Ecuador in South American World Cup qualifying on Thursday. The 65-year-old Italian, who left Real Madrid at the end of the European season, has been charged with taking Brazil through the latter stages of qualifying for the 2026 World Cup. Advertisement The former AC Milan and Chelsea manager replaced Dorival Junior, who was sacked at the end of March after the 4-1 thrashing at the hands of reigning champions and bitter rivals Argentina. Thursday's result leaves the Selecao in fourth place in the qualifying table on 22 points while Ecuador, the surprise package in the campaign, remain in second place on 24 points. Argentina, who face Chile later on Thursday, lead the standings on 32 points and are the only team to have officially secured their place in the tournament which will be held in the USA, Canada and Mexico. Paraguay, who enjoyed a 2-0 win over Marcelo Bielsa's Uruguay, sit in third place, level on points with Ecuador. Advertisement Ecuador knew a win would put them on the brink of qualification and there was a packed crowd at the Estadio Monumental in Guayaquil. But the home side were dealt a blow just before kick-off when goalkeeper Hernan Galindez suffered a muscle strain in the warm-up and replacement Gonzalo Valle was hurriedly sent out to make his debut. If Valle had any nerves they eased when he did well to parry a shot from inside the box from Vinicius Jr. who had been set up by Gerson following a turnover. Chances were limited in a contest where neither side was able to get control of midfield. The pattern continued after the break with Ecuador, missing their injured striker and talisman Enner Valencia, struggling to pose a threat. Advertisement Real Madrid star Vinicius was quiet for much of the game and with Rodrygo absent, Brazil also lacked potency in attack. The best opening came in the 75th minute when Vinicius broke down the left and cut back to Casemiro, but the Manchester United midfielder, recalled to the national side by Ancelotti, saw a tame side-footed effort easily dealt with by Valle. - Patience - While there was no instant impact from Ancelotti, Vinicius, who played under the coach in Madrid, said he needed time to make his impact felt. "I'm very happy to have Ancelotti here with us, because I've always said he's the best coach I've ever worked with. Having the opportunity to work with him in the Brazilian national team is the best," the winger told SporTV. Advertisement "He hasn't had time to show his work, his game plan, because he's only had two or three days of training," he added. A header from midfielder Matías Galarza just 13 minutes into the game and a late penalty from Julio Enciso earned Paraguay a crucial victory over a depleted Uruguay. The victory left Paraguay on the verge of securing their return to the World Cup for the first time since qualifying for the 2010 finals in South Africa. Victory in Sao Paulo on Tuesday against Brazil would secure their place in the tournament. The top six teams in the 10-team qualifying group head directly into the World Cup draw while the seventh placed team must enter the inter-confederation playoffs. sev/rcw
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
A judge tells federal agencies they can't enforce anti-trans bias policies against Catholic groups
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Two federal agencies cannot punish Catholic employers and health care providers if they refuse for religious reasons to provide gender-affirming care to transgender patients or won't provide health insurance coverage for such care to their workers, a federal judge ruled Thursday. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, the chief federal judge in North Dakota, bars the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing a health care rule it imposed in 2024 under Democratic President Joe Biden. The rule said that existing policies against sex discrimination covered discrimination based on gender identity, so that health care providers risked losing federal funds if they refused to provide gender-affirming care. Welte also barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from telling employers that a failure to have health plans cover gender-affirming care for their workers would represent discrimination based on sex that could lead to a lawsuit against them and penalties. The judge rejected a request from an order of nuns, two Catholic homes and the Catholic Benefits Association, which represents employers, to impose similar bans on each agency covering abortion and fertility treatments Catholic organizations consider immoral. He said those claims were 'underdeveloped' and not ready for court review. But he concluded that allowing the two agencies to enforce policies on gender-affirming care or health coverage for it would restrict employers' and health care providers' ability to live out their religious beliefs, violating a 1992 federal law meant to provide broad protections for religious freedoms. The HHS rule had a provision allowing the agency to make case-by-case exceptions based on religious beliefs, but Welte said that would be insufficient. 'The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,' wrote Welte, who is based in Fargo. The two agencies did not immediately respond to email messages seeking comment Thursday. The Catholic Benefits Association serves more than 9,000 employers and about 164,000 employees enrolled in member health plans, according to its website. The group, founded in 2013, says it 'advocates for and litigates in defense of our members' First Amendment rights to provide employee benefits and a work environment that is consistent with the Catholic faith.' The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedoms. Association General Counsel Martin Nussbaum welcomed the ruling, saying the organization's members 'want to do the right thing in their health plan and in their medical services that they provide for those medical providers, and this gives them protection to doing that.' And he said the judge's ruling suggests there are no mandates from the federal government on abortion or fertility treatments, so there is 'no need to provide protection.' The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Civil Rights Act's protections against discrimination based on sex also cover anti-LGBTQ+ bias in employment. The landmark 1964 act doesn't have specific provisions dealing with bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But courts also have intervened to limit how far the federal government can go in combating anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination when religious organizations or employers with religious beliefs against LGBTQ+ rights are involved. Both the HHS rule and the EEOC's policy on sex discrimination have their roots in efforts by President Barack Obama to protect LGBTQ+ rights in 2016, in his last year in office. When President Donald Trump began his second term in January, he issued an order saying the federal government would not recognize transgender people's gender identities. In April, two employees said the EEOC was classifying all new gender identity-related discrimination cases as its lowest priority, essentially putting them on indefinite hold. The 2024 HHS rule also covered bias based on 'pregnancy or related conditions," and the Catholic health care providers argued that they might face losing federal funds if they refused to perform abortions, in line with Catholic opposition to abortion. But HHS said the rule wouldn't have forced them to perform abortions or provide health coverage for abortions — only that it couldn't refuse to care for someone because they'd had one, according to Welte. ___ Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas.
San Francisco Chronicle
7 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
A judge tells federal agencies they can't enforce anti-trans bias policies against Catholic groups
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Two federal agencies cannot punish Catholic employers and health care providers if they refuse for religious reasons to provide gender-affirming care to transgender patients or won't provide health insurance coverage for such care to their workers, a federal judge ruled Thursday. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, the chief federal judge in North Dakota, bars the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing a health care rule it imposed in 2024 under Democratic President Joe Biden. The rule said that existing policies against sex discrimination covered discrimination based on gender identity, so that health care providers risked losing federal funds if they refused to provide gender-affirming care. Welte also barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from telling employers that a failure to have health plans cover gender-affirming care for their workers would represent discrimination based on sex that could lead to a lawsuit against them and penalties. The judge rejected a request from an order of nuns, two Catholic homes and the Catholic Benefits Association, which represents employers, to impose similar bans on each agency covering abortion and fertility treatments Catholic organizations consider immoral. He said those claims were 'underdeveloped' and not ready for court review. But he concluded that allowing the two agencies to enforce policies on gender-affirming care or health coverage for it would restrict employers' and health care providers' ability to live out their religious beliefs, violating a 1992 federal law meant to provide broad protections for religious freedoms. The HHS rule had a provision allowing the agency to make case-by-case exceptions based on religious beliefs, but Welte said that would be insufficient. 'The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,' wrote Welte, who is based in Fargo. The group, founded in 2013, says it 'advocates for and litigates in defense of our members' First Amendment rights to provide employee benefits and a work environment that is consistent with the Catholic faith.' The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedoms. Association General Counsel Martin Nussbaum welcomed the ruling, saying the organization's members 'want to do the right thing in their health plan and in their medical services that they provide for those medical providers, and this gives them protection to doing that.' And he said the judge's ruling suggests there are no mandates from the federal government on abortion or fertility treatments, so there is 'no need to provide protection.' The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Civil Rights Act's protections against discrimination based on sex also cover anti-LGBTQ+ bias in employment. The landmark 1964 act doesn't have specific provisions dealing with bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But courts also have intervened to limit how far the federal government can go in combating anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination when religious organizations or employers with religious beliefs against LGBTQ+ rights are involved. Both the HHS rule and the EEOC's policy on sex discrimination have their roots in efforts by President Barack Obama to protect LGBTQ+ rights in 2016, in his last year in office. When President Donald Trump began his second term in January, he issued an order saying the federal government would not recognize transgender people's gender identities. In April, two employees said the EEOC was classifying all new gender identity-related discrimination cases as its lowest priority, essentially putting them on indefinite hold. The 2024 HHS rule also covered bias based on 'pregnancy or related conditions," and the Catholic health care providers argued that they might face losing federal funds if they refused to perform abortions, in line with Catholic opposition to abortion. But HHS said the rule wouldn't have forced them to perform abortions or provide health coverage for abortions — only that it couldn't refuse to care for someone because they'd had one, according to Welte.
