White smoke has emerged, signalling a new pope has been chosen
In over 2,000 years of papal elections, only two popes have been chosen in May — the month dedicated to the Madonna in the Roman Catholic calendar.
The first came in 1342, during the Avignonese captivity, when the papacy was based in France due to conflict between the pope and the Roman nobles. That conclave opened on May 5 and after just two days, Cardinal Pierre Roger was elected Pope Clement VI. He led the Church through the early years of the Black Death. He's known for his charitable efforts and protection of Jews from persecution during the plague.
The second May election came in 1605, after Pope Leo XI's brief 27-day papacy. That conclave began on May 8 and stretched to 27 rounds before the cardinals elected Camillo Borghese, who became Pope Paul V. (Villa Borghese Park and Gallery, among the largest parks in Rome, belonged to the family, along with many other properties in and around the city.) His papacy marked the beginning of a new Baroque era in Rome, with a major revitalization of the city — and papal power.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
2 days ago
- CBC
Can the G7 leaders still find anything to agree about?
Fifty years ago this fall the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States met in a castle outside Paris for three days of meetings, at the conclusion of which they issued the Declaration of Rambouillet, a 15-point statement of principles and commitments. Noting that they were "each responsible for the government of an open, democratic society, dedicated to individual liberty and social advancement," the Group of Six said they had come together because of "shared beliefs and shared responsibilities." The leaders pledged to "strengthen our efforts for closer international co-operation and constructive dialogue among all countries," "restore growth in the volume of world trade" and "restore greater stability in underlying economic and financial conditions in the world economy." In June 1976, with Canada at the table to create the G7, the leaders met in Puerto Rico and declared that, "The interdependence of our destinies makes it necessary for us to approach common economic problems with a sense of common purpose and to work toward mutually consistent economic strategies through better co-operation." Last year, when the leaders of the G7 met in Italy for the 2024 summit, they agreed to a nearly 20,000-word joint communique, covering their shared stances on an expansive array of global issues, including Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, food security, climate change, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, migration and the global economy. The pronoun "we" appeared dozens of times. Even if it's fair to ask how much all the words really amount to, there is something to be said for the value of the world's seven most powerful democracies coming together to express common views and beliefs — in addition to the specific, tangible initiatives that often flow from their annual gatherings. But in 2025, on the occasion of the 50th of these meetings, it's unclear on how much the seven leaders of these countries can still agree. Such lack of consensus would at least underline how much the world has changed in the last few months. The ghost of Charlevoix It's unlikely that the 50th meeting of the G7 will produce an expansive communique. A senior Canadian official, speaking to reporters this week, suggested the leaders will sign off on some number of narrower statements on specific issues. In that case, the results of the 2025 summit might resemble the output of the 2019 summit in France, which produced a succinct 259-word declaration agreed to by all leaders, alongside specific statements on gender equality and Africa, and a pair of chair "summaries" reviewing the discussions that were had. That summit in Biarritz was notably the last time Donald Trump attended a G7 summit. It was also the first after the G7's infamous blow-up in Charlevoix, Que. And the memory of that 2018 summit — the last time Canada played host — hangs over this year's gathering in Kananaskis, Alta. At Issue | What Carney's G7 invite list says about his priorities 1 day ago Duration 21:51 The Charlevoix gathering is most remembered for what happened shortly after it had seemingly concluded. Trump, apparently aggrieved by statements Justin Trudeau made in his closing news conference about American tariffs on steel and aluminum, used Twitter to blast the prime minister and declare that the United States was renouncing the summit's communique. But those tweets were just the culmination of what had been a fractious 48 hours as the leaders and their advisers haggled over the wording of the communique. The United States wanted the concluding statement to refer to "a" rules-based international order, not "the" rules-based international order (essentially a disagreement over the current existence of a rules-based international order). The United States didn't want to make any reference to the Paris Accords on climate change (Trump had pulled the U.S. out of the agreements in 2017). There were other differences over Iran and plastic pollution. A final communique was ultimately produced — agreed to just moments before Trump departed — but not all of the differences could be papered over: the split over climate change was explicitly acknowledged in the text. The example of Charlevoix may have influenced Biarritz. And it may be helping guide the approach to Kananaskis. The amount of work needed to get a consensus document "would really mean a race to the bottom" for what would be included, Peter Boehm, who was Trudeau's top negotiator at the Charlevoix summit, said in a recent interview with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. This is also, of course, a summit that will be held amid a trade war being waged between some of the countries at the table. The first goal for Carney — who has some experience with international summits as a former central bank governor and finance official — at next week's meetings might simply be to avoid another blow-up. And that might mean aiming for a lower level of agreement, perhaps in line with the official priorities the prime minister announced last week — which included countering foreign interference and transnational crime, improving joint responses to wildfires, fortifying critical mineral supply chains and harnessing artificial intelligence. "There is value in keeping the U.S. engaged by pursuing co-operation on a narrower set of priorities," says Roland Paris, a professor of international affairs and a former adviser to Trudeau. What message will this year's G7 send? But if the seven leaders can no longer agree about many things — including big, fundamental things like climate change or the war in Ukraine — it's tempting to ask whether the G7 still makes sense as a group. "The G7's internal strains mirror the larger fragmentation of multilateral governance, at a moment when the world urgently needs more, not less, co-operation," Paris says. Kim Nossal, a foreign policy scholar at Queen's University, says there is still value in the leaders of these seven nations coming together in person to take a measure of each other and discuss global issues. "It seems to me that, from the perspective of one of the other [leaders], that it remains a useful institution to keep going until or unless the United States under Trump trashes it and burns it down," Nossal says. WATCH | Will there be a final communique?: Why won't there be a leaders' communique coming out of next week's G7? | Power & Politics 1 day ago Duration 2:50 He said a relatively narrow agreement could send an implicit message about the state of the world (Nossal and I spoke last week, before government sources began to suggest a broad joint communique would not be forthcoming). "A good outcome is one where there is a relatively anodyne general communique at the end that the Americans sign off on that demonstrates quite clearly to the world just how far removed the Americans are from engagement," Nossal says. "That provides then an incentive for the remaining members of the West to double down on working with each other to address questions that the Americans no longer are interested in such as, for example, climate change." If there is no longer a unanimously held belief among the G7 in shared responsibilities, that will put an even greater onus on those nations who still believe in common purpose.
National Post
3 days ago
- National Post
Alberto Mingardi: When the Italians chose media freedom
'Liberty' hasn't been very popular in recent elections — economic freedom in particular. Article content There are many reasons for that, but the main one seems to be that concepts such as freedom, the market, and competition are abstract to most people. 'Market' was a metaphor, connecting the act of trading with a village's fair. Now, the word evokes big financial entities, government bonds and a world of transactions impossibly detached from our daily lives. Article content Article content Article content Still, there are heartening counter-examples on this account. Thirty years ago, a referendum in Italy — not a country particularly known for its economic libertarianism — showed that freedom of choice may have a go with voters, if they understand it as something concrete. Article content Article content In 1994, media tycoon Silvio Berlusconi surprisingly won the national election and was appointed prime minister. He was then new to politics, though he would embark on a long and controversial career. Yet, only after a few months, his coalition collapsed, and his political enemies tried to cripple his media empire with three referenda that appeared a sure-fire way to win the vote. Article content They failed. Berlusconi's television networks were not big on information or politics. They thrived on entertainment, free from any attempt to lecture the public. They were a little revolution, in a country that for years was used to government television only. Article content Television in Italy was conceived as a monopoly and, as such, debuted in 1954. Article content Article content Only in the 1970s did a Constitutional Court's ruling open the way to some limited competition to Radiotelevisione italiana (RAI), the government-owned broadcasting company which featured news and entertainment. At that time, dozens of small cable networks running on shoestring budgets emerged, running quiz shows and local sports news programs, but then the government introduced such complex cable TV regulations that these networks that wanted to survive transitioned to radio. Article content Article content The 1970s were the heyday of the Italian interventionism. The entrepreneurial state ran at full speed, owning and purchasing businesses, trade unions were an informal part of the government, and regulations stifled private ventures. The arrival of independent media broadcasters was seen as nothing less than a barbarian invasion by many at the time. Article content At 40 years old, real estate developer Silvio Berlusconi bought his first TV network in 1976, a small cable TV system that operated from a satellite city he built near Milan. He did not think that private competition should be happy with whatever space the government TV left it. Berlusconi wanted to compete with government TV. He aimed big. The government had three networks; he wanted as many. He bought movie rights and courted famous TV stars.
CTV News
6 days ago
- CTV News
Italy's referendum on citizenship and job protections fails because of low turnout
Ballot papers are prepared on a table for referendums on citizenship and job protections, at a polling station in Milan, Italy, Sunday, June 8, 2025. (Claudio Furlan/LaPresse via AP) ROME — Italy's referendums aimed at relaxing citizenship laws and improving job protections failed on Monday because of low turnout. But organizers said that it contributed to restarting the public debate in the country over high-stakes issues. The result was a clear defeat for the center-left opposition and a victory for Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her ruling right-wing coalition, which openly supported abstention. Final data showed that turnout stood at 30.6% of eligible voters after two days of polling, well below the 50% plus one required to make the vote valid. Meloni's far-right Brothers of Italy party celebrated the referendum's failure. 'The only real goal of this referendum was to bring down the Meloni government,' the party said on social media, posting a picture of the main opposition's leaders. 'In the end, it was the Italians who brought you down.' Maurizio Landini, leader of the CGIL trade union that was behind the initiative, acknowledged the defeat, but stressed it could be a starting point to revive key social battles focusing on workers' rights. 'We knew it wouldn't be a walk in the park,' he said. 'There is an obvious crisis of democracy and participation.' Landini noted that more than 14 million Italians cast their ballots in the two-days referendum, with more than 80% voting in favor of the proposed measures aimed at strengthening job protections. The five proposals wanted to make it easier for immigrants and children born in Italy to foreigners to obtain citizenship — halving the years of residency required to five from 10 — and provide more job protections. The leader of Italy'a center-left Democratic Party, Elly Schlein, stressed that 'more electors voted in these referendums than those who voted for the right in 2022, backing Meloni in government.' Rights at stake Campaigners for the change in the citizenship law said that it would help second-generation Italians born in the country to non- European Union parents better integrate into a culture they already see as theirs. The new rules, if passed, would have affected about 2.5 million foreign nationals who still struggle to be recognized as citizens. Activist groups said that the proposed reforms also would have allowed faster access to civil and political rights, such as the right to vote, eligibility for public employment and freedom of movement within the EU. The referendum on citizenship, however, proved to be more divisive than the others, as only about 65% voted 'yes' in support of measures easing the current laws. Activists and opposition parties denounced the lack of public debate on the measures, accusing the governing coalition of having tried to dampen interest in sensitive issues that directly impact immigrants and workers. In May, Italy's AGCOM communications authority filed a complaint against RAI state television and other broadcasters over a lack of adequate and balanced coverage. Opinion polls published in mid-May showed that only 46% of Italians were aware of the issues driving the referendums. 'Many believe that the referendum institution should be reviewed in light of the high levels of abstention (that) emerged in recent elections and the turnout threshold should be lowered,' said Lorenzo Pregliasco, political analyst and pollster at YouTrend. Giada Zampano, The Associated Press
