Who Picks the Next Pope? The 135 Cardinals Who Make Up Papal Conclave
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The death of Pope Francis on Monday commenced the process to elect a new leader of the Catholic Church. The election will be held among the 135 cardinals who are eligible to serve in the papal conclave that will meet in the coming weeks.
Why It Matters
There are more than 1.3 billion Catholics across the globe who will be led by the new pope. Whoever becomes pope will play a key role in shaping the church by overseeing theological matters and making appointments to critical roles. He will also become a key figure in international relations, as well as being a leader on social and political matters.
What To Know
The papal conclave is the process in which the College of Cardinals pick the new pope. Cardinals who are younger than age 80—the age limit was put in place in 1970 by Pope Paul VI—meet in secrecy at the Sistine Chapel to cast their votes for the new pope. Any baptized Catholic male is eligible to become the next pope. But for centuries, all popes have come from the College of Cardinals.
Cardinals attend the Pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice Mass at St Peter's Basilica before entering the conclave on March 12, 2013, in Vatican City.
Cardinals attend the Pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice Mass at St Peter's Basilica before entering the conclave on March 12, 2013, in Vatican City.There are 135 eligible cardinals who are eligible for the conclave this time around.
The majority—108—were appointed by Pope Francis, 22 by Pope Benedict XVI and five by Pope John Paul II.
The average age of the papal conclave is just under 70.5 years old. The youngest is Cardinal Mykola Bychok, 45, of Ukraine. Pope Francis appointed him to the post in December 2024.
Where Are The Cardinals In The Conclave From?
A notable feature of the conclave is the increase in geographical diversity compared to the last one in 2013, when Pope Francis was appointed to succeed Pope Benedict.
There are 19 eligible cardinals from Africa and 21 from Asia, compared to only 11 and 10, respectively, in the last conclave. Italy, meanwhile, has seen its numbers decline from 28 to 16, though it still remains the most represented nation in the conclave.
The United States, Brazil, Spain and France follow Italy with the most cardinals represented.
Here is a look at where all 135 cardinals are from.
Pope Francis, during his tenure, appointed cardinals from Africa, Asia and South America, diversifying the College of Cardinals. Many of his appointees notably share some of his more progressive views on matters like LGBTQ+ rights, immigration and climate change. He made history as the first pope from Latin America.
Many of his appointees came from countries that had never been represented in the College of Cardinals, such as Rwanda, Cape Verde and Mongolia.
What People Are Saying
Vice President JD Vance, on X, formerly Twitter: "I just learned of the passing of Pope Francis. My heart goes out to the millions of Christians all over the world who loved him. I was happy to see him yesterday, though he was obviously very ill. But I'll always remember him for the below homily he gave in the very early days of COVID. It was really quite beautiful."
Former President Barack Obama, on X: "Pope Francis was the rare leader who made us want to be better people. In his humility and his gestures at once simple and profound—embracing the sick, ministering to the homeless, washing the feet of young prisoners—he shook us out of our complacency and reminded us that we are all bound by moral obligations to God and one another."
What Happens Next
The church has entered a phase known as Sede Vacante, which triggers a sequence of events designed to honor the deceased pope and prepare for the election. The College of Cardinals is expected to meet this week to make formal funeral plans for Pope Francis.
The election of a new pope will take place after the funeral. The cardinals vote by secret ballot up to four times each day until a new pope is chosen. This will go on until two-thirds of the cardinals agree on a new pope.
Each time a pope is not chosen, the ballots will be burned with chemicals to produce black smoke to signify that voting will continue. Once the pope is chosen, the ballots will be burned with chemicals to produce white smoke.
The most recent elections have taken only a few days. Pope Francis was elected after five ballots, while it took only four ballots to elect Pope Benedict XVI in 2005.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Religion cases spark both unanimity and division at Supreme Court
Religious rights are sparking both unanimity and deep divisions on the Supreme Court this term, with one major decision still to come. On Thursday, all nine justices sided with Catholic Charities Bureau in its tax fight with Wisconsin. But weeks earlier, the court's 4-4 deadlock handed those same religious interests a loss by refusing to greenlight the nation's first religious charter school. Now, advocates are turning their attention to the other major religion case still pending this term, which concerns whether parents have the First Amendment right to opt-out their children from instruction including books with LGBTQ themes. 'The court has been using its Religion Clause cases over the past few years to send the message that everything doesn't have to be quite so polarized and quite so everybody at each other's throats,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of Becket, a religious legal group that represents both the parents and Catholic Charities. The trio of cases reflect a new burst of activity on the Supreme Court's religion docket, a major legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure. Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations over 83 percent of the time, a significant jump from previous eras. The decisions have oftentimes protected Christian traditions, a development that critics view as a rightward shift away from a focus on protecting non-mainstream religions. But on Thursday, the court emerged unanimous. The nine justices all agreed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment in denying Catholic Charities a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. Wisconsin's top court denied the exemption by finding the charity wasn't primarily religious, saying it could only qualify if it was trying to proselytize people. Catholic Charities stressed that the Catholic faith forbids misusing works of charity for proselytism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday's majority opinion finding Wisconsin unconstitutionally established a government preference for some religious denominations over others. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Sotomayor wrote. The fact that Sotomayor, one of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, wrote the opinion heightened the sense of unity. 'She's voted with us in several other cases, too, and I think it just shows that it is not the partisan issue that people sometimes try to make it out to be,' said Rienzi. However, Sotomayor's opinion notably did not address Catholic Charities' other arguments, including those related to church autonomy that Justice Clarence Thomas, one the court's leading conservatives, endorsed in a solo, separate opinion. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which filed a brief backing Catholic Charities, similarly called the unanimity an 'encouraging' sign. 'If they can find a way to do that, they want to do that. And that's why I think you have the opinion written the way that it was. It was written that way so that every justice could feel comfortable signing off on it,' said Gardner. Supporters and critics of the court's decision agree it still poses repercussions on cases well beyond the tax context — and even into the culture wars. Perhaps most immediately, the battle at the Supreme Court will shift from unemployment taxes to abortion. The justices have a pending request from religious groups, also represented by Becket, to review New York's mandate that employers' health care plans cover abortions. The regulation exempts religious organizations only if they inculcate religious values, meaning many faith-based charities must still follow the mandate. And for the First Liberty Institute, it believes Thursday's decision bolsters its legal fights in the lower courts. It represents an Ohio church that serves the homeless and an Arizona church that provides food distribution, both embroiled in legal battles with local municipalities that implicate whether the ministries are religious enough. Thursday's decision is not the first time the Supreme Court has unanimously handed a win to religious rights advocates. In 2023, the First Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian U.S. Postal Service worker who requested a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays. And two years earlier, the court in a unanimous judgment ruled Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to refer children to a Catholic adoption agency because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. 'People thought that was a very narrow decision at the time, but the way it has sort of been applied since then, it has really reshaped a lot of the way that we think about Free Exercise cases,' said Gardner. It's not always kumbaya, however. Last month, the Supreme Court split evenly on a highly anticipated religious case that concerned whether Oklahoma could establish the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. The 4-4 deadlock meant the effort fizzled. Released just three weeks after the justices' initial vote behind closed doors, the decision spanned one sentence. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' it reads. Though the deadlock means supporters of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School are left without a green light, they are hoping they will prevail soon enough. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's third appointee to the court, recused from the St. Isidore case, which many court watchers believe stemmed from her friendship with a professor at Notre Dame, whose religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore. But Barrett could participate in a future case — providing the crucial fifth vote — that presents the same legal question, which poses consequential implications for public education. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has one major religion case left this term. The justices are reviewing whether Montgomery County, Md., must provide parents an option to opt-out their elementary-aged children from instruction with books that include LGBTQ themes. The group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents suing say it substantially burdens their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. At oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic with the parent's plea as the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line. 'Probably, it will be a split decision,' said Gardner, whose group has filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of parents in California. But he cautioned, 'you never know where some of the justices will line up.'
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
New '1984' Foreword Includes Warning About 'Problematic' Characters
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The 75th anniversary edition of George Orwell's novel 1984, which coined the term "thoughtcrime" to describe the act of having thoughts that question the ruling party's ideology, has become an ironic lightning rod in debates over alleged trigger warnings and the role of historical context in classic literature. The introduction to the new edition, endorsed by Orwell's estate and written by the American author Dolen Perkins-Valdezm, is at the center of the storm, drawing fire from conservative commentators as well as public intellectuals, and prompting a wide spectrum of reaction from academics who study Orwell's work. Perkins-Valdez opens the introduction with a self-reflective exercise: imagining what it would be like to read 1984 for the first time today. She writes that "a sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity," noting the complete absence of Black characters. She also describes her pause at the protagonist Winston Smith's "despicable" misogyny, but ultimately chooses to continue reading, writing: "I know the difference between a flawed character and a flawed story." "I'm enjoying the novel on its own terms, not as a classic but as a good story; that is, until Winston reveals himself to be a problematic character," she writes. "For example, we learn of him: 'He disliked nearly all women, and especially the young and pretty ones.' Whoa, wait a minute, Orwell." That framing was enough to provoke sharp critique from novelist and essayist Walter Kirn on the podcast America This Week, co-hosted with journalist Matt Taibbi. Kirn characterized the foreword as a kind of ideological overreach. "Thank you for your trigger warning for 1984," he said. "It is the most 1984ish thing I've ever f***ing read." In which you will learn that the current leading paperback version of 1984, its official Orwell-estate-approved 75th anniversary edition, includes a 1984-ish trigger-warning introduction calling the novel's hero "problematic" because of his "misogyny." I am not making this up. — Walter Kirn (@walterkirn) June 2, 2025 Later in the episode, which debuted on June 1, Kirn blasted what he saw as an imposed "permission structure" by publishers and academic elites. "It's a sort of Ministry of Truthism," he said, referring to the Ministry of Truth that features prominently in the dystopian novel. "They're giving you a little guidebook to say, 'Here's how you're supposed to feel when you read this.'" Conservative commentator such as Ed Morrissey described the foreword as part of "an attempt to rob [Orwell's work] of meaning by denigrating it as 'problematic.'" Morrissey argued that trigger warnings on literary classics serve to "distract readers at the start from its purpose with red herrings over issues of taste." But not all responses aligned with that view. Academic Rebuttal Peter Brian Rose-Barry, a philosophy professor at Saginaw Valley State University and author of George Orwell: The Ethics of Equality, disputed the entire premise. "There just isn't [a trigger warning]," he told Newsweek in an email after examining the edition. "She never accuses Orwell of thoughtcrime. She never calls for censorship or cancelling Orwell." In Rose-Barry's view, the foreword is neither invasive nor ideological, but reflective. "Perkins-Valdez suggests in her introduction that 'love and artistic beauty can act as healing forces in a totalitarian state,'" he noted. "Now, I find that deeply suspect... but I'd use this introduction to generate a discussion in my class." Taibbi and Kirn, by contrast, took issue with that exact line during the podcast. "Love heals? In 1984?" Taibbi asked. "The whole thing ends with Winston broken, saying he loves Big Brother," the symbol of the totalitarian state at the heart of the book. Kirn laughed and added, "It's the kind of revisionist uplift you get from a book club discussion after someone just watched The Handmaid's Tale." Photographs of Eric Blair, whose pen name was George Orwell, from his Metropolitan Police file, c.1940. Photographs of Eric Blair, whose pen name was George Orwell, from his Metropolitan Police file, c.1940. The National Archives UK Perkins-Valdez, a Black writer, Harvard graduate and professor of literature at American University, also noted the novel's lack of racial representation: "That sliver of connection can be difficult for someone like me to find in a novel that does not speak much to race and ethnicity at all." Kirn responded to that sentiment on the show by pointing out that Orwell was writing about midcentury Britain: "When Orwell wrote the book, Black people made up maybe one percent of the population. It's like expecting white characters in every Nigerian novel." Richard Keeble, former chair of the Orwell Society, argued that critiques of Orwell's treatment of race and gender have long been part of academic discourse. "Questioning Orwell's representation of Blacks in 1984 can usefully lead us to consider the evolution of his ideas on race generally," he told Newsweek. "Yet Orwell struggled throughout his life, and not with complete success, to exorcise what Edward Said called 'Orientalism.'" Keeble added, "Trigger warnings and interpretative forewords... join the rich firmament of Orwellian scholarship—being themselves open to critique and analysis." Cultural Overreach The 75th anniversary edition of George Orwell's 1984 has become a lightning rod in debates over alleged wokeness, censorship and the role of historical context in reading classic literature. The 75th anniversary edition of George Orwell's 1984 has become a lightning rod in debates over alleged wokeness, censorship and the role of historical context in reading classic literature. Newsweek / Penguin Random House While critics like Kirn view Perkins-Valdez's new foreword as a symptom of virtue signaling run amok, others see it as part of a long-standing literary dialogue. Laura Beers, a historian at American University and author of Orwell's Ghosts: Wisdom and Warnings for the Twenty-First Century, acknowledged that such reactions reflect deeper political divides. But she defended the legitimacy of approaching Orwell through modern ethical and social lenses. "What makes 1984 such a great novel is that it was written to transcend a specific historical context," she told Newsweek. "Although it has frequently been appropriated by the right as a critique of 'socialism,' it was never meant to be solely a critique of Stalin's Russia." Dolen Perkins-Valdez. Dolen Perkins-Valdez. Courtesy American University "Rather," she added, "it was a commentary on how absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the risk to all societies, including democracies like Britain and the United States, of the unchecked concentration of power." Beers also addressed the role of interpretive material in shaping the reading experience. "Obviously, yes, in that 'interpretive forewords' give a reader an initial context in which to situate the texts that they are reading," she said. "That said, such forewords are more often a reflection on the attitudes and biases of their own time." While the foreword has prompted the familiar battle lines playing out across the Trump-era culture wars, Beers sees the conversation itself as in keeping with Orwell's legacy. "By attempting to place Orwell's work in conversation with changing values and historical understandings in the decades since he was writing," she said, "scholars like Perkins-Valdez are exercising the very freedom to express uncomfortable and difficult opinions that Orwell explicitly championed."
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Reacts to 'Epstein Files' Claim by Elon Musk
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Donald Trump has reacted after Tesla CEO Elon Musk claimed the president's name appears in the files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier and convicted sex offender. Musk wrote in a post Thursday on X, formerly Twitter: "Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!" He added: "Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out." Why It Matters There has been a high-profile fallout between Trump and Musk, who have engaged in a bitter public dispute. The feud began when Musk expressed criticism of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, labeling it "outrageous" and "pork-filled." Trump later said he was "disappointed" in Musk's negativity toward the budget reconciliation bill, which now sits with the Senate. Since then, the feud has escalated, with Musk claiming Trump is named in the Epstein files. Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary, has called the CEO's claim "an unfortunate episode." From left: Donald Trump attends a meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., June 5, 2025; and Elon Musk looks on in the Oval Office there, May 30, 2025. From left: Donald Trump attends a meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., June 5, 2025; and Elon Musk looks on in the Oval Office there, May 30, 2025. AP What To Know On Friday, Trump shared a post on Truth Social written by Epstein's former lawyer David Schoen on X, which claimed that his client "had no information to hurt President Trump." "I was hired to lead Jeffrey Epstein's defense as his criminal lawyer 9 days before he died. He sought my advice for months before that. I can say authoritatively, unequivocally, and definitively that he had no information to hurt President Trump. I specifically asked him!" Schoen wrote. He briefly represented Epstein shortly before the financier's death in 2019. Thousands of pages of records that named people with ties to Epstein, who died while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges in 2019, have been released over the years. But there is no evidence to suggest Trump is mentioned in any unreleased files related to Epstein. And while the president is mentioned in some of the previously released court documents on Epstein, he has not been accused of wrongdoing. Meanwhile, Musk's claim taps into suspicions among conspiracy theorists and online sleuths that incriminating and sensitive files that the government possesses about Epstein's case have yet to be released. Trump has promised to release more government files related to Epstein, a move that gained attention after Attorney General Pam Bondi teased new disclosures earlier this year—though most released materials were already public. Trump and Epstein were previously acquaintances, with the Republican once calling the financier a "terrific guy." However, Trump later said the pair had a falling out about 15 years before Epstein's 2019 arrest. The president's name appears in flight logs for the disgraced man's private jet, mostly documenting trips in the 1990s between Palm Beach and New York. Epstein's former pilot testified that Trump and other public figures flew on the plane, but said he never witnessed any sexual misconduct on board. Trump has not been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein or his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of sex trafficking. One Epstein accuser, Johanna Sjoberg, mentioned being with Epstein at Trump's Atlantic City casino in 2016 testimony, but did not say she met Trump or allege misconduct. A Trump spokesperson told Newsweek in January 2024 that claims about Trump's connection to Epstein had been "thoroughly debunked" by the release of related documents. What People Are Saying White House press secretary Karolina Leavitt told Newsweek on Thursday: "This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted. The President is focused on passing this historic piece of legislation and making our country great again." President Donald Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Thursday: "Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!" The Democrats account on X wrote in a post alongside a picture of Trump with Epstein: "What is Trump hiding? Release the Epstein files." What Happens Next The Trump administration is expected to face growing pressure over the delayed release of additional files related to Epstein. After releasing an initial batch of documents in February, the administration pledged that more would follow. Bondi addressed concerns about the delay, saying the FBI is still reviewing a substantial volume of evidence. Democratic Representatives Stephen Lynch and Robert Garcia have demanded answers. In a letter first reported by Axios, they urged Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel to "immediately clarify" whether recent claims made by Elon Musk about the case are accurate. Lynch and Garcia are also seeking a detailed timeline for the Justice Department's declassification and public release of all remaining Epstein documents. The lawmakers asked for an explanation of why no new records have been released since February, what role Trump is playing in the review process, and a list of personnel involved. They also requested clarification on why previously released documents contained "significant redactions."
