Black smoke again as Cardinals remain divided on pope
VATICAN CITY (AP) - Cardinals remained divided over who should be pope on Wednesday after three rounds of voting, an indication that disagreements remain about the direction of the Catholic Church following the upheaval unleashed by Pope Benedict XVI's surprise resignation.
In the second day of the conclave, thick black smoke billowed from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, prompting sighs of disappointment from the thousands of people gathered in a rain-soaked and chilly St. Peter's Square.
"I'm not happy to see black smoke. We all want white," said the Rev. ThankGod Okoroafor, a Nigerian priest studying theology at Holy Cross University in Rome. "But maybe it means that the cardinals need to take time, not to make a mistake in the choice."
The Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi insisted that the continued balloting was part of the natural course of the election and didn't signal divisions among cardinals. He noted that only once in the past century had a pope been elected on the third ballot: Pope Pius XII, elected on the eve of World War II.
"This is very normal," he said. "It's not a sign of particular divisions within the college, but rather of a normal process of discernment."
A winner must receive 77 votes, or two-thirds of the 115, to be named pope.
That said, a conclave has rarely before taken place against the backdrop of a papal resignation and revelations of mismanagement, petty bickering, infighting and corruption in the Holy See bureaucracy. Those revelations, exposed by the leaks of papal documents last year, have divided the College of Cardinals into camps seeking a radical reform of the Holy See's governance and those defending the status quo.
After the third ballot, the cardinals broke for lunch at the Vatican hotel and were returning for another two rounds of voting Wednesday afternoon.
The drama - with stage sets by Michelangelo and an outcome that is anyone's guess - is playing out against the backdrop of the church's need both for a manager who can clean up an ungovernable Vatican bureaucracy and a pastor who can revive Catholicism in a time of growing secularism.
The difficulty in finding both attributes in one man, some analysts say, means that the world should brace for a long conclave - or at least one longer than the four ballots it took to elect Benedict in 2005.
"We have not had a conclave over five days since 1831," noted the Rev. Thomas Reese, author of "Inside the Vatican," a bible of sorts for understanding the Vatican bureaucracy. "So if they are in there over five days, we know they are in trouble; they are having a hard time forming consensus around a particular person."
The names mentioned most often as "papabile" - a cardinal who has the stuff of a pope - include Cardinal Angelo Scola, the archbishop of Milan, an intellect in the vein of Benedict but with a more outgoing personality, and Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the Canadian head of the Vatican's important bishops' office who is also scholarly but reserved like Benedict.
Brazilian Cardinal Odilo Scherer is liked by the Vatican bureaucracy but not by all of his countrymen. And Cardinal Peter Erdo of Hungary has the backing of European cardinals who have twice elected him as head of the European bishops' conference.
On the more pastoral side is Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston, the favorite of the Italian press, and Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the back-slapping, outgoing archbishop of New York who has admitted himself that his Italian is pretty bad - a drawback for a job that is conducted almost exclusively in the language.
The American candidates, however, did get a boost of sorts on Wednesday: President Barack Obama, who has clashed with American bishops over his health care mandate, indicated the Catholic Church could certainly tolerate a superpower pope since Catholic bishops in the U.S. "don't seem to be taking orders from me."
In an interview with ABC News, he said an American pope would preside just as effectively as a leader of the Catholic church from any other country.
Lombardi said it was a "good hypothesis" that the pope - whoever it is - would be installed next Tuesday, on the feast of St. Joseph, patron saint of the universal church. The installation Mass is attended by heads of state from around the world, requiring at least a few days' notice.
Thousands of people braved a chilly rain on Wednesday morning to watch the 6-foot- (2-meter-) high copper chimney on the chapel roof for the smoke signals telling them whether the cardinals had settled on a choice. Nuns recited the rosary, while children splashed in puddles.
After the smoke poured out, the crowds began to dissipate, though a few hangers-on appeared ready to wait out the afternoon balloting.
"The more we wait, the better chance we have of having a surprise," said Ludovic de Vernejouls, a 21-year-old Parisian studying architecture in Rome.
Unlike the confusion that reigned during the 2005 conclave, the smoke this time around has been clearly black - thanks to special smoke flares akin to those used in soccer matches or protests that were lit in the chapel ovens to make the burned ballots black.
The Vatican on Wednesday divulged the secret recipe used: potassium perchlorate, anthracene, which is a derivative of coal tar, and sulfur for the black smoke; potassium chlorate, lactose and a pine resin for the white smoke.
The chemicals are contained in five units of a cartridge that is placed inside the stove of the Sistine Chapel. When activated, the five blocks ignite one after another for about a minute apiece, creating the steady stream of smoke that accompanies the natural smoke from the burned ballot papers.
Despite the great plumes of smoke that poured out of the chimney, neither the Sistine frescoes nor the cardinals inside the chapel suffered any smoke damage, Lombardi said.
The cardinals were spending their free time inbetween votes sequestered in the Vatican's Santa Marta hotel, an impersonal modern hotel on the edge of the Vatican gardens. They have no access to television, newspapers, cellphones or computers, and the hotel staff has taken an oath of secrecy to not reveal anything they see or hear.
The actual vote takes place in far more evocative surroundings: the Sistine Chapel frescoed by Michelangelo in the 16th century with scenes of "Creation" and "The Last Judgment."
In the second day of the conclave, thick black smoke billowed from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, prompting sighs of disappointment from the thousands of people gathered in a rain-soaked and chilly St. Peter's Square.
"I'm not happy to see black smoke. We all want white," said the Rev. ThankGod Okoroafor, a Nigerian priest studying theology at Holy Cross University in Rome. "But maybe it means that the cardinals need to take time, not to make a mistake in the choice."
The Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi insisted that the continued balloting was part of the natural course of the election and didn't signal divisions among cardinals. He noted that only once in the past century had a pope been elected on the third ballot: Pope Pius XII, elected on the eve of World War II.
"This is very normal," he said. "It's not a sign of particular divisions within the college, but rather of a normal process of discernment."
A winner must receive 77 votes, or two-thirds of the 115, to be named pope.
That said, a conclave has rarely before taken place against the backdrop of a papal resignation and revelations of mismanagement, petty bickering, infighting and corruption in the Holy See bureaucracy. Those revelations, exposed by the leaks of papal documents last year, have divided the College of Cardinals into camps seeking a radical reform of the Holy See's governance and those defending the status quo.
After the third ballot, the cardinals broke for lunch at the Vatican hotel and were returning for another two rounds of voting Wednesday afternoon.
The drama - with stage sets by Michelangelo and an outcome that is anyone's guess - is playing out against the backdrop of the church's need both for a manager who can clean up an ungovernable Vatican bureaucracy and a pastor who can revive Catholicism in a time of growing secularism.
The difficulty in finding both attributes in one man, some analysts say, means that the world should brace for a long conclave - or at least one longer than the four ballots it took to elect Benedict in 2005.
"We have not had a conclave over five days since 1831," noted the Rev. Thomas Reese, author of "Inside the Vatican," a bible of sorts for understanding the Vatican bureaucracy. "So if they are in there over five days, we know they are in trouble; they are having a hard time forming consensus around a particular person."
The names mentioned most often as "papabile" - a cardinal who has the stuff of a pope - include Cardinal Angelo Scola, the archbishop of Milan, an intellect in the vein of Benedict but with a more outgoing personality, and Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the Canadian head of the Vatican's important bishops' office who is also scholarly but reserved like Benedict.
Brazilian Cardinal Odilo Scherer is liked by the Vatican bureaucracy but not by all of his countrymen. And Cardinal Peter Erdo of Hungary has the backing of European cardinals who have twice elected him as head of the European bishops' conference.
On the more pastoral side is Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston, the favorite of the Italian press, and Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the back-slapping, outgoing archbishop of New York who has admitted himself that his Italian is pretty bad - a drawback for a job that is conducted almost exclusively in the language.
The American candidates, however, did get a boost of sorts on Wednesday: President Barack Obama, who has clashed with American bishops over his health care mandate, indicated the Catholic Church could certainly tolerate a superpower pope since Catholic bishops in the U.S. "don't seem to be taking orders from me."
In an interview with ABC News, he said an American pope would preside just as effectively as a leader of the Catholic church from any other country.
Lombardi said it was a "good hypothesis" that the pope - whoever it is - would be installed next Tuesday, on the feast of St. Joseph, patron saint of the universal church. The installation Mass is attended by heads of state from around the world, requiring at least a few days' notice.
Thousands of people braved a chilly rain on Wednesday morning to watch the 6-foot- (2-meter-) high copper chimney on the chapel roof for the smoke signals telling them whether the cardinals had settled on a choice. Nuns recited the rosary, while children splashed in puddles.
After the smoke poured out, the crowds began to dissipate, though a few hangers-on appeared ready to wait out the afternoon balloting.
"The more we wait, the better chance we have of having a surprise," said Ludovic de Vernejouls, a 21-year-old Parisian studying architecture in Rome.
Unlike the confusion that reigned during the 2005 conclave, the smoke this time around has been clearly black - thanks to special smoke flares akin to those used in soccer matches or protests that were lit in the chapel ovens to make the burned ballots black.
The Vatican on Wednesday divulged the secret recipe used: potassium perchlorate, anthracene, which is a derivative of coal tar, and sulfur for the black smoke; potassium chlorate, lactose and a pine resin for the white smoke.
The chemicals are contained in five units of a cartridge that is placed inside the stove of the Sistine Chapel. When activated, the five blocks ignite one after another for about a minute apiece, creating the steady stream of smoke that accompanies the natural smoke from the burned ballot papers.
Despite the great plumes of smoke that poured out of the chimney, neither the Sistine frescoes nor the cardinals inside the chapel suffered any smoke damage, Lombardi said.
The cardinals were spending their free time inbetween votes sequestered in the Vatican's Santa Marta hotel, an impersonal modern hotel on the edge of the Vatican gardens. They have no access to television, newspapers, cellphones or computers, and the hotel staff has taken an oath of secrecy to not reveal anything they see or hear.
The actual vote takes place in far more evocative surroundings: the Sistine Chapel frescoed by Michelangelo in the 16th century with scenes of "Creation" and "The Last Judgment."
Little out of date (3:30 PM) isn't it?Â
Sounds as though the news media is already talking Sainthood.  Note to KOMO - check the news wire more often.
KOMO News should update this article. The Seattle Times announced at 11:30 that a new pope was chosen.
http://seattletimes.com/html/home/index.html
I can tell Catholics like to read because this is a long freaking article. This is almost as pointless as sports analysis lol.
What if we were to see pink smoke coming from that chimney - what would that signify?
Holy Smoke.
The suspense is killing me!! Who will the high priest be for the catholic chuch? Who cares!Â
@HallandOates It's got to be someone good, but not good enough to out all of these Cardinals for raping children. Since they just got rid of the Emperor from Star Wars perhaps Vader will take over?
@AndySue28Â @HallandOatesÂ
Statistically speaking, the same number of clergymen engage in aberrant behaviour as in your line of work.
@AndySue28 @HallandOates Use the force Luke. Use the force!Â
@AndySue28Â @HallandOates Both of you are ignorant on the subject. Â
@Mike Pittman @AndySue28 @HallandOates You know a lot about covering up child molestation?
@AndySue28 @HallandOates 4%.  Do some research AndySue.  4% of the Catholic Clergy have engaged in inappropriate behavior.  Interestingly, 4% of other lifestyles, professions, religious leaders, etc (i.e. 4% of the population) have also done the same thing.  You're allowing the media to control your thoughts.  Not a good trait.  Ht incidence in the Catholic Church is no higher than the incidence elsewhere.  Should clergy be held to a higher standard yes.  Is this still unacceptable, yes. But your argument is suggesting the Catholic church has a significantly higher incidense than elsewhere and it doesn't.Â
@JCCBlvu @AndySue28 @HallandOates Those are just the ones we know about. The most sickening thing is these Cardinals try to protect these creeps. If these were truly men of "god" and lived by they would have hung those bastards in the front lawn to show they won't tollerate that. But no, they tried to cover it up.
@HallandOates I'm assuming 1.2 Billion other people do.
@Mike Pittman @HallandOatesÂ
And only about 41 of so of them actually attend church!
@Mike Pittman @HallandOates Hook line and sinker they do!Â
Worst episode of Lost, ever
Why is it OK to bash Catholics and their traditions, but it's not OK to bash another's beliefs and traditions? Stand up and say something bad about a Muslim and you will be reviled as some sort of racist, but the same people who will call you a racist will ridicule the Catholic Church and their members. I'm not Catholic, but I was raised to respect other people and their beliefs and traditions.
@Mike Pittman These religions are so big the affect all of us, most of the time in a negative way. I do not respect these religious leaders who lie to themselves and their followers and become the root cause for all wars ever fought.
Also, Muslim's don't wear big goofy hats...@AndySue28 It's still bigotry. Your assertion that religion is " the root cause for all wars ever fought." is patently false. Learn some history.
@Mike Pittman @AndySue28 He's a troll, please don't feed him.
@bagsofdirt @AndySue28 @Mike Pittman Let's stick to the facts here. There are radical terrorists who want to use Allah as an excuse -- they are not Muslims by Muslim standards. We also have radical terrorists who want to Christ as and excuse -- they are not Christians by Christian standards.
And then we have the ones who like to apply labels without the vaguest idea what the labels mean and whether they apply at all. Okay?
@AndySue28 @Mike Pittman Our most current war is caused by religion. The muslims want to kill us all. We don't want them too.
@JK15 @Mike Pittman I think it's pretty much ok to bash all religions. They're all farcical cults based entirely on fiction and fables.Â
@AndySue28@Mike PittmanÂ
Presented with no comment:
"The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations." -Albert Einstein
@Mike Pittman And, I tried to be rational with you. I looked at your argument and even changed my opinion on wars being caused by religion. But, you wouldn't see my point of view, that Religion has done a ton of damage to the human race.Â
Thinking that something is real until concrete evidence disproves it is not how the world works, you're thinking innocent until proven guilty. I used your logic against you. That's when all hell broke loose. You don't like the thought that you might, just might, be wrong about religion. I'm fine with being wrong. In fact, me being wrong in this argument would be the best thing in the world, life after death would be great.Â
And if there is indeed a God, I'm sure he doesn't hate anyone. Not even you! :)
@JK15 @Mike Pittman Yep, you are an idiot. You have absolutely no idea in what or who I believe in.Â
@AndySue28@Mike Pittman@JK15 What I believe or don't believe is not the issue. Facts. That is all I have presented. I've not talked about "a man in the sky". You said all major wars were caused by religion. You stated that as fact. I disproved that fact. You, after being presented with facts, decided to ignore them and state your belief again.  I can no more prove God exists than you can prove God doesn't.  Which one of us is the one with the problem?
@Mike Pittman Fred Phelps would be proud to call you a brother.
@Mike Pittman @AndySue28 @JK15 Only a child would use reason and decide not to believe there is a man in the sky watching over all of us because other people told me so? Sounds like you don't know many children.
@Jalharad @Mike Pittman @AndySue28 :)
@JK15 @Mike Pittman I deal in facts. At no point have a stated what my faith is or isn't. If someone believes that Religion is the root cause of all major wars, they are ignorant. If, after given the facts otherwise, they still believe it, then they are an idiot.  See how that works? Â
@Mike Pittman @AndySue28 *grabs bag of popcorn*
@AndySue28 @Mike Pittman @JK15 I never said you would burn in hell. I don't know that you or anyone else will. You, with your limited knowledge, just assume things. What, are you like 13 or something? because only a child would act this way.Â
@Mike Pittman @JK15 For not believing in what you believe you say I will burn forever in hell. I'd say you started the disrespect.
@Mike Pittman I guess you could take the time to go back and read what I wrote. At no point did I ever say anything negative about you or your religion. I simply pointed out that your assertion that other religions get a free pass was incorrect. You are the one who decided to take it to the point of disrespect. It's attitudes like yours that drive people away from the church. You are obviously a religious man, but how many times have you called people "ignorant" and "idiots" on this board? You claim that you have respectful dialog with friends who have different beliefs than you. Reading what you say to people on here who disagree with you, I find that hard to believe.
@JK15 @Mike Pittman Why should I respect someone who obviously disrespects me. I don't wish you ill. I just will not waste my time with you because your mind is closed. Christianity and my beliefs have nothing to do with it. You also are ignorant of my beliefs and most likely, you know very little about Christianity.
@Mike Pittman Ha, all I had to do was point out how full of crap you were and you took your ball and went home. You cry about lack of respect. Go look at your posts claiming everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. There's a reason religion is dying, and you are a perfect reason why.
@AndySue28 @JK15 @Mike Pittman Like believing most wars are caused by religion. THAT'S an idiot!
@AndySue28Â @Mike Pittman You don't even know the meaning of the word.
@JK15 @Mike Pittman Hardly. I realize that some people aren't respectful. Like you. Which is why I will no longer waste my time with you.
@JK15Â @Mike Pittman Best play I've ever seen. If people want to believe idiotic things they should be ready to be treated like idiots.
@Mike Pittman @AndySue28 So I'm a Christian! HAHAHA
@Mike Pittman "The Book of Mormon" on Broadway, 100's of jokes about Jews being cheap, Scientologists being mocked for their insane beliefs, Mormons being mocked for "magic underwear" and believing that Eden was in Missouri. That's just a small amount of things you will hear about other religions on a regular basis..How would you consider any of those "being respectful". Besides, your original point was that it's considered taboo to make fun of any other religion other than yours. Other religions are made fun of just as much, if not more.  Just because you are respectful doesn't mean everyone is. Learn the difference
@AndySue28 @Mike Pittman Good Lord, I just gave you all the proof in the world. You are now beyond ignorant, you are an idiot incapable of learning.
@Mike Pittman @AndySue28 There is no proof against my claim...therefore by your own logic I am right.
Also I'm right about all of the wars being caused by religion. Without religion we wouldn't have had the dark ages. We'd be 300 years more technologically advanced, things would be great.Â
@AndySue28Â @Mike Pittman You are woefully ignorant of history and Christianity.
@AndySue28 @Mike Pittman The root cause of WWII was not because Hitler didn't like Jews. (He considered them a race more than a particular faith). You have absolutely no idea what the root cause of WWII was. WWII was essentially the result of the the bad end to WWI and the treaty of Versailles that forced Germany (and much of the world) into a huge depression. We did not fight the Axis over the Jews. Japan did not attack pearl harbor because we weren't Shinto. The Jews were a side bar.
Even Iraq, there were religious elements and in Afghanistan as well, but our initial reasons (root cause) were not over religion)Â That is not to say that some people wanted it to be so, but that is not the root cause.Â
Also, to say that by taxing churches, we could save every starving life on earth? Ludicrous on its face. I also would argue, that it is my experience, that most major Christian denominations feed more people in need than the government ever would with any tax they collected.
@Mike Pittman @AndySue28 I think just one example of a war started by Religion should be enough. Isn't your God all about love and peace among men? Why would god tell anyone to start a fight?
Keep living the lie. Keep wasting your Sundays. I feel sorry for you, I honestly do. Open your eyes and see all of the evidence against religion.
@AndySue28@Mike PittmanYou name all the major wars that you think were caused by religion. Go ahead. Quite possibly, you'll have to go back to the 30 Years War in the first half of the 17th century to find a major war involving solely Christians fighting over religion. And don't say Northern Ireland. Hardly a major war.
@Mike Pittman What are you smoking? WWII not a religious war? Hitler wiping out the Jewish people due to their impurity. Iraq, Religious rebels attacking our soil in the name of their God. Trying to rid the world of those with a different religion than them.
 I'll give you Vietnam, Korea, and WWI and change my point of view a tad. I guess many of the recent wars were caused more by differences in government.Â
I won't say that Religion doesn't cause death, hatred, and lack of scientific process though. Do you know that with the money the US would save by taxing churches it could feed everyone on the planet? If Church's really care for humanity why haven't they given up no taxes to save every starving life on Earth?
@JK15 I have Mormon family members. I have friends that are pagans and Jews. We might disagree on things, but never out of disrespect.  Disagreeing on doctrine is not necessarily "bashing". Insulting people is, however, bashing. Making snide comments is "bashing". Saying untrue things about them is also bashing. Learn the difference.
@Mike Pittman "Why is it OK to bash Catholics and their traditions, but it's not OK to bash another's beliefs and traditions?"
Jews, Scientologists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Pagans would probably disagree with you that it's not "OK" to bash other religions and their traditions.Â
@Mike Pittman @AndySue28 Name one major war that wasn't caused by religion then.
@AndySue28 Yes I can. You have no idea. You are ignorant of history and reality.  There are occasional conflicts, but the vast majority of people killed on this planet has nothing to do with religion.
@Mike Pittman @AndySue28 Okay, maybe not all wars. But the vast majority of man caused death on this planet stems from religious differences. You can't argue that.