logo
How Long Do Papal Conclaves Last? A Look at How Timings Have Changed Drastically in Recent Years

How Long Do Papal Conclaves Last? A Look at How Timings Have Changed Drastically in Recent Years

After the death of a Pope, a papal conclave—an incredibly secretive and important process— takes place in the Vatican as cardinals determine who will next lead the Catholic Church.
Following the passing of Pope Francis on April 21, preparations for the conclave began to take place, as cardinals from around the world made their way to Rome.
On Wednesday, May 7, the first day of the conclave, 133 cardinals gathered in the Sistine Chapel to cast their vote. They failed to reach a decision, as signalled by the black smoke which emerged from the Chapel's chimney in the evening. A candidate must receive at least two-thirds of the vote in order to become the next Pope, and a successful vote will see white smoke leaving the Sistine Chapel.
On the second day of a conclave, four rounds of voting will be held, and so on, until a new leader of the Catholic Church is elected. In theory, this process could last indefinitely.
It's of little surprise then that conclaves have previously been known to last for years. However, recent elections have been much shorter. The last conclave to last more than a week was in 1831, when Pope Gregory XVI was elected after 51 days of voting.
Here's a breakdown of how the length of conclaves has changed in recent years.
The longest conclave in history—and how it came to be
The death of Pope Clement VI in 1268 led to quite a crisis for the Catholic Church. 17 cardinals were part of the conclave put together to choose his successor, but the group was split between two factions known as the Guelphs and Ghibellenes.
This division, as well as personal and political motivations amongst the cardinals, led to a stalemate, and the conclave ultimately lasted 1,006 days. It took the closing of the Viterbo city gates, where the conclave was held, and complete isolation from the outside world before a decision could be reached.
This three-year conclave led the new Pope, Gregory X, to declare in 1274 that future conclaves must be held behind closed doors, with no contact between cardinals and the outside.
Gregory X said that cardinals should be locked in isolation 'cum clave' —latin for 'with a key.' The term has since developed into 'conclave,' giving this election process its modern name.
In the years that followed, conclaves were known to last for anything from a few days to a few months.
Thankfully, for Catholics and the rest of the world, recent conclaves haven't lasted a pain-staking three years. Out of the last five, the longest has only been three days.
The most recent election of Pope Francis in March 2013, lasted two days. Cardinals needed just five rounds of voting to elect the next Pontiff; one vote on the first day and four on the second.
It was the same time frame in 2005, as Pope Benedict XVI was chosen by cardinals after two days.
In 1978, there were remarkably two conclaves. In October, Pope John Paul II was elected after eight rounds of voting across three days. Just months before, in August, John Paul I was elected in two days. John Paul I died of a heart attack just 33 days after the beginning of his term as Pope. His death has been shrouded in conspiracy, given the sudden nature and timing of his passing.
Fifteen years prior, in June 1963, Pope Paul VI was chosen as the next Pontiff after three days of voting.
How long will this conclave take?

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

MORNING GLORY: Antisemitism is shameful and evil. None of us should ever be neutral on such hate
MORNING GLORY: Antisemitism is shameful and evil. None of us should ever be neutral on such hate

Fox News

time2 hours ago

  • Fox News

MORNING GLORY: Antisemitism is shameful and evil. None of us should ever be neutral on such hate

An attack on any Jew in America is an attack on every Jew in America. It does not matter if the victim of the intended violence was murdered, maimed or escaped unharmed. It does not matter in the least if the targeted Jew was an American, an American-Israeli, a Jew from a third country, or a gentile mistaken for a Jew or an Israeli, or a supporter of either the Jewish people or the state of Israel. The perpetrators of the violence are all evil. Deeply evil. Diseased in mind and soul. Their accomplices, whether in the display of action or via expressed or unexpressed sympathy —and including the apologists thereof attempting to explain motives — all are evil. As a Catholic Christian, I believe in Hell. Those who indulge antisemitism in act or word or in the silence of their mind are headed to Hell absent genuine repentance. For antisemitism is the exact opposite of Christian beliefs and practice. The "Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love," stated the document, "Nostra Aetate of the Second Vatican Council in 1965, "decries hatred, persecutions, displays of antisemitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone." So, let's hear this in some homilies this Sunday and from the pulpits of Protestant churches. The Catholic Church's doctrine was unequivocal in its condemnation of antisemitism: "At any time." By "anyone." Including, of course, the attacks on Jews in Boulder, Colorado, on June 1, 2025, the murder of two Israeli diplomats in Washington, D.C. on May 21, 2025, outside the Lillian and Albert Small Capital Jewish Museum, and the firebombing of the home of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro on April 13, 2025. Antisemitism extends far back in the U.S. to the numerous attacks against Jews on American campuses and streets since October 7, 2023, and to the long trail of antisemitic violence before that horrific massacre which came primarily from the far right, including the attack on the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, on October 27, 2018, and the attack on April 27, 2019, at Chabad of Poway synagogue in Poway, California. The "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August of 2017, like its predecessor proposed march of the Nazis in Skokie, Illinois, in 1976, are more recent examples. (The march in Skokie never happened but was moved to Chicago after extensive litigation upholding the right of the antisemites to march.) Those are just incidents in my memory. American antisemitism has a long and shameful history. But so too does non-Jewish opposition to antisemitism have a distinguished pedigree which includes, most famously, President George Washington's 1790 letter to the Jewish congregation in Newport, Rhode Island. The "father of our country" wrote then that the new nation he was helping build would give "to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance." President Donald Trump's condemnations of the violence directed at Jews has been equally unequivocal. Good. There has always been clarity on this issue. Too many, however, dodge the horror. Where is the non-Jewish chattering class today? Mostly silent or mumbling or posting attempts to link the criminals to Trump, or Elon Musk or a dozen different excuses. "But, but, but" is the first refuge of the Jew hater afraid to go public. There are some notable exceptions to the quiet or the equivocal. "The Editors" podcast from National Review of June 2, titled "Horror in Colorado," set an excellent bar of condemnation, but it has far too few equivalents in either the conservative or legacy press. Indeed, there are many accomplices to the ancient evil online and in print. Silence is indeed complicity right now, and outright complicity in knowingly platforming antisemitism is especially repugnant at a moment when diseased minds seem poised to follow the examples of the criminals in D.C. and Boulder. Match meet gasoline. Who and where, exactly, is today's equivalent of the French journalist and novelist Émile Zola played a key role in defending Alfred Dreyfus through his famous "J'accuse" open letter, published in the newspaper L'Aurore in January 1898. (If you'd like to learn the outline of the Dreyfus affair, try the excellent 2013 novel by Robert Harris, "An Officer and a Spy." The complicated persecution of Dreyfus can be difficult to trace more than 125 years after the fact, but Harris does it for the reader in an excellent example of the good that historical fiction can do to repair the damage done by the collapse of elementary and secondary education in world history in the U.S.) There are columnists and platforms of note. Have they filed yet? There are athletes and musicians and actors who are quick to rally to popular causes which trigger cascades of virtue signaling. Have they posted? I have yet to see a hashtag or open letter demanding the shaming and shunning of antisemitism in America. Perhaps such a statement is circulating now and about to appear. Perhaps a "We Are the World" is even now being rehearsed, recorded and set for release that will condemn this latest American variant of the ancient evil. Thus far, though, the silence is deafening. Singer-songwriter John Ondrasik of "Five for Fighting" has set the example. Will anyone else from the vast community of media join him? Hugh Hewitt is a Fox News contributor, and host of "The Hugh Hewitt Show" heard weekday afternoons 3 PM to 6 PM ET on the Salem Radio Network, and simulcast on Salem News Channel. Hugh wakes up America on over 400 affiliates nationwide, and on all the streaming platforms where SNC can be seen. He is a frequent guest on the Fox News Channel's news roundtable hosted by Bret Baier weekdays at 6pm ET. A son of Ohio and a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Michigan Law School, Hewitt has been a Professor of Law at Chapman University's Fowler School of Law since 1996 where he teaches Constitutional Law. Hewitt launched his eponymous radio show from Los Angeles in 1990. Hewitt has frequently appeared on every major national news television network, hosted television shows for PBS and MSNBC, written for every major American paper, has authored a dozen books and moderated a score of Republican candidate debates, most recently the November 2023 Republican presidential debate in Miami and four Republican presidential debates in the 2015-16 cycle. Hewitt focuses his radio show and his column on the Constitution, national security, American politics and the Cleveland Browns and Guardians. Hewitt has interviewed tens of thousands of guests from Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump over his 40 years in broadcasting. This column previews the lead story that will drive his radio/tv show today.

Putin thanks Vatican for assistance in humanitarian matters
Putin thanks Vatican for assistance in humanitarian matters

Yahoo

time14 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Putin thanks Vatican for assistance in humanitarian matters

Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed gratitude for the Vatican's mediation in humanitarian issues related to the Ukraine war in a first phone call with Pope Leo XIV. Putin advocated for the deepening of relations with the Holy See, which he said were based on "shared spiritual and ethical values," the Kremlin said on Wednesday. The Vatican stated later that the conversation "particularly focused on the situation in Ukraine and peace." The pope called on Russia to make a gesture promoting peace and emphasized the importance of dialogue between the parties and the search for solutions to the conflict, according to the Holy See. They also discussed the humanitarian situation and the necessity of providing aid where needed. According to a Kremlin statement, Putin wished the new pope success and conveyed congratulations from the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill. Leo XIV has clearly condemned the war as an act of aggression and called for its end. His predecessor, Francis, was often criticized for calling for peace without distinguishing between aggressor and victim. Putin complains about Ukraine's church policy Putin asked the leader of the Catholic Church to advocate for religious freedom in Ukraine. He sees this as being threatened by the ban on the former Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which was loyal to Moscow. The Ukrainian leadership, on the other hand, views this church as a security risk because many of its bishops and priests are closely connected to Moscow.

Get ready for a flurry of activity from the Supreme Court
Get ready for a flurry of activity from the Supreme Court

USA Today

time14 hours ago

  • USA Today

Get ready for a flurry of activity from the Supreme Court

Get ready for a flurry of activity from the Supreme Court Show Caption Hide Caption Protesters line up outside Supreme Court birthright citizenship hearing Protesters shouted "birthright citizenship belongs to us!" outside the Supreme Court in Washington D.C. WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is picking up the pace as it announces some of its most consequential decisions of the term before adjourning for the summer. The next cluster of opinions will drop on June 5, though the biggest outstanding decisions may not come until later. Those include whether the court will allow President Donald Trump to enforce his changes to birthright citizenship while his new policy is being litigated and whether the court will uphold Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors. In addition to the court dispensing with the cases it debated in oral arguments in recent months, the justices are continuing to field an unusual number of emergency requests from the Trump administration to intervene in the many legal challenges to the president's policies. That could push the regular work of the court into July. Here's a look at the decisions expected in the coming weeks: Limiting challenges to Trump's executive authority Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship has been put on hold by judges across the country who ruled it's probably unconstitutional. During the May 15 oral arguments, none of the justices voiced support for the Trump administration's theory that the president's order is consistent with the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause and past Supreme Court decisions about that provision. But several of the justices have expressed concern about the ability of one judge to block a law or presidential order from going into effect anywhere in the country while it's being challenged. It was unclear from the oral arguments how the court might find a way to limit nationwide – or 'universal' – court orders and what that would mean for birthright citizenship and the many other Trump policies being challenged in court. Religious expression versus separation of church and state Of the three cases the justices heard about the First Amendment's protections for the right to practice religion, the biggest was the Catholic Church's bid to run the nation's first religious charter school. But the court deadlocked 4-4 over whether they could do that. That left in place a lower court's rejection of the school but without setting a precedent that must be followed for similar attempts in the future. More: Supreme Court blocks Catholic charter school in big setback for religion advocates In the other cases about the free exercise of religion, the court is likely to side with Catholic Charities in a dispute over when religious groups have to pay unemployment taxes. And the court's conservative majority sounded sympathetic to Maryland parents who raised religious objections to having their elementary school children read books with LGBTQ+ characters. The battle over transgender rights Transgender rights cases were already making their way to the Supreme Court from state actions and now the Trump administration policies regarding transgender people will accelerate that trend. The court has already granted the administration's emergency request that it be allowed to enforce its ban on military service by transgender people while that restriction is being challenged. In one of the court's biggest pending decisions, the justices will decide whether states can ban minors from receiving puberty blockers and hormone therapy. During December's oral arguments, a majority seemed to agree states can do that. But how they reach that conclusion will affect how much their decision applies to other transgender rights case including those about transgender athletes, whether health plans have to cover gender affirming care, where transgender inmates must be housed and if transgender people can serve in the military. Implications for parental rights While the court seems likely to rule against the parents challenging Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors, they sounded poised to back the Maryland parents who want their elementary school children excused from class when books with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. And in a case about Texas' requirement that websites verify users are 18 or over, one justice expressed her own parental frustration over trying to control what her children see on the internet. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has seven children, said she knows from personal experience how difficult it is to keep up with the content blocking devices that those challenging Texas' law offered as a better alternative. But while the justices were sympathetic to the purpose of Texas' law, they may decide a lower court didn't sufficiently review whether it violates the First Amendment rights of adults so must be reconsidered. Gun cases could bring mixed results In one of the court's biggest decisions so far this year, a 7-2 majority upheld the Biden administration's regulation of untraceable 'ghost guns,' ruling that the weapons can be subject to background checks and other requirements. But the court is expected to reject Mexico's attempt to hold U.S. gunmakers liable for violence caused by Mexican drug cartels armed with their weapons. A majority of the justices sounded likely to agree with the gunmakers that the chain of events between the manufacture of a gun and the harm it causes is too lengthy to blame the industry. Neither case is directly about the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. And the court narrowly decided against taking up two cases about that right – Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons and Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity magazines. More: Supreme Court won't review bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines Planned Parenthood, but not abortion directly, is an issue Unlike last year when the court considered two cases about abortion access, that hot button issue is not directly before the court. But the justices are deciding whether to back South Carolina's effort to deprive Planned Parenthood of public funding for other health services because it also provides abortions. The issue is whether the law allows Medicaid patients to sue South Carolina for excluding Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. If the court says the patients can't sue, other GOP-led states are expected to also kick Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid. And anti-abortion advocates are pushing for the same action nationwide. Conservative challenges to Obamacare and internet subsidies The court is considering conservative challenges to Obamacare and to an $8 billion federal program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans. The justices seemed likely to reject an argument that the telecommunications program is funded by an unconstitutional tax, a case that raised questions about how much Congress can 'delegate' its legislative authority to a federal agency. The latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act takes aim at 2010 law's popular requirement that insurers cover without extra costs preventive care such as cancer screenings, cholesterol-lowering medication and diabetes tests. Two Christian-owned businesses and some people in Texas argue that the volunteer group of experts that recommends the services health insurance must cover is so powerful that, under the Constitution, its members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Multiple discrimination challenges The court is deciding a number of cases about alleged discrimination in the workplace, at school and in drawing congressional boundaries. The justices appeared likely to rule that a worker faced a higher hurdle to sue her employer as a straight woman than if she'd been gay, a decision that would make it easier to file 'reverse discrimination' lawsuits. The court may also side with a Minnesota teenager trying to use the Americans with Disabilities Act to sue her school for not accommodating her rare form of epilepsy that makes it difficult to attend class before noon. It's less clear whether the court will agree with non-Black voters in Louisiana that the state's congressional map, which includes two majority-Black districts, discriminates against them. Decisions in all the cases are expected by the end of June or early July.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store