How Long Will the Papal Conclave Last? Here's What We Know
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.
Read More: 10 Surprising Facts About Papal Conclaves
Here's a breakdown of how the length of conclaves has changed in recent years.
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.
Read More: Meet Cardinal Luis Antonio Gokim Tagle, a Top Contender to Succeed Pope Francis
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.
Of course, there is no knowing when it comes to an exact timeframe, but if recent conclaves are anything to go by, we should know who the next head of the Catholic Church will be within a week.
Contact us at letters@time.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
40 minutes ago
- USA Today
From marginal religious groups to mainstream Christians: Why some see a shift in Supreme Court cases
The court's first case involving a Rastafarian highlights the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history, even as more cases come from mainstream Christian groups. WASHINGTON – There have been no shortage of religious groups seeking help from the Supreme Court in recent years, including three cases last term that involved the Catholic Church. But the religion at the center of a case set for after the summer is not nearly as well represented in the population - or in the courtroom. In fact, it appears to be the first time the Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a Rastafarian. Damon Landor said his religious rights were violated when his dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by Louisiana prison guards. More: Supreme Court to decide if prison officials can be sued over inmates' religious rights Handcuffed to a chair while his dreadlocks were shaved off Landor had shown prison officials a copy of a court ruling that dreadlocks grown for religious reasons should be accommodated. But an intake guard threw the ruling in the trash and Landor was handcuffed to a chair while his knee-length locks were shaved off. The justices will decide whether Landor can sue the guards for compensation under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Landor – whose appeal was backed by more than 30 religious groups and the Justice Department − argues that monetary damages are often the only way to hold prison officials accountable when religious rights are violated. Legal experts on religion cases expect the court will side with the Rastafarian. That would be consistent not just with the high success rate of appeals the court agrees to hear from religious people, but also with the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history. Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists Most of the religious cases Richard Garnett teaches in his classes at the University of Notre Dame Law School involve smaller religious communities, including Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists. 'The story of religious freedom in America has developed through cases involving members of minority religions,' Garnett said. Other court watchers, however, say that was more true in the past than it is now. 'That's kind of a legacy view,' said Carl Esbeck, an expert on religious liberty at the University of Missouri School of Law. In fact, a 2022 study found that; since 2005, the winning religion in most Supreme Court religious cases was a mainstream Christian organization. In the past, by contrast, pro-religion outcomes more frequently favored minority or marginal religious organizations, according to the analysis by Lee Epstein at Washington University in St. Louis and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School. 'The religion clauses of the First Amendment were once understood to provide modest but meaningful protection for non-mainstream religions from discrimination by governments that favored mainstream Christian organizations, practices, or values,' they wrote. Similarly, traditionalist Christians – such as orthodox Catholics and Baptists – had been significantly less successful than other religious groups in getting accommodations from lower federal courts from 1986 to 1995, according to a study by Michael Heise of Cornell Law School and Gregory Sisk of the University of St. Thomas School of Law. But from 2006 to 2015, their disadvantage 'appeared to fade into statistical insignificance,' they wrote in 2022. The Supreme Court, they said, 'appears to be setting the stage for a more equitable and expansive protection of religious liberty.' Colorado and the gay wedding cake debate Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, agrees that the court has taken an expansive view of religious liberty protections. But he says it hasn't always been equitable. In 2018, the court said Colorado had shown "religious hostility" to a baker who didn't want to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. More: How a Supreme Court case about a gay couple's wedding cake got caught up in Israeli judicial reform But that same month, Mach said, the court upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban 'even in the face of Trump's repeated unambiguous statements condemning Islam and Muslims.' More broadly, he said, the court's 'general hostility to the separation of church and state' erodes protections for minority groups promised by the First Amendment's prohibition against the government favoring a specific religion or favoring religion in general. 'Built into that structure is necessarily a protection against the imposition by the majority of its favored religious doctrine,' he said. In February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at 'Eradicating anti-Christian Bias' and calling on agencies to eliminate the "anti-Christian weaponization of government." The administration cited that order when telling federal employees in a July 28 memo they may discuss and promote their religious beliefs in the workplace. More: Supreme Court blocks Catholic charter school in big setback for religion advocates Ruling for Amish built on to benefit other religions In June, the Supreme Court built upon a 1972 ruling for the Amish as it affirmed the religious rights of parents to remove their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being used. When deciding more than 50 years ago that Amish parents did not have to keep their children in school until age 16 as Wisconsin required, the court said those parents had an argument 'that probably few other religious groups or sects could make.' But Justice Samuel Alito left no doubt about the broader significance of Wisconsin v. Yoder in the 6-3 opinion he authored in June that sided with parents from a variety of religious backgrounds − including Roman Catholic but also Muslim, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and other faiths − who objected to the LGBTQ+ storybooks used in Maryland school district. 'Yoder is an important precedent of this Court, and it cannot be breezily dismissed as a special exception granted to one particular religious minority,' Alito wrote. More: Supreme Court sides with Maryland parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools In a 2020 speech to the conservative Federalist Society, Alito had warned that 'religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right.' He listed examples of cases he'd judged about religious minorities, including the rights of Muslim police officers to have beards, of a Jewish prisoner to organize a Torah study group and whether a Native American could keep a bear for religious services. The baker who didn't want to make a cake for a same-sex wedding and Catholic nuns who objected to insurance coverage for contraceptives 'deserve no less protection,' Alito said about more recent cases. More: Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in case about tax exemptions and religion `Clear pattern of preference for religious groups' Cornell Law School Professor Nelson Tebbe said more of the claims about religious freedom started to come from mainstream majority Christian groups as political polarization increased and as the gay rights movement picked up speed. 'Suddenly, civil libertarian groups who had been on the side of minority religions…started to realize that civil rights laws could be vulnerable to religious attacks by conservative Christians and they started to get worried,' Tebbe said. As the court has shifted its approach, he said, the justices have both granted exemptions from regulations that burden religion as well as said government must treat religious groups no differently than secular organizations when providing public benefits − such as school vouchers. 'While both of those could be seen as understandable on their own terms, when you put them together, there's a clear pattern of preference for religious groups,' he said. 'It's a pretty dramatic moment in constitutional law in this area.' Garnett, the religious freedom expert at the University of Notre Dame Law School, said the court's decisions are a reflection of the ongoing debate over how much accommodation should be given in a country with diverse religious views. 'So the fact that those cases are coming up isn't because the court sort of shifted to protecting majority groups,' he said. 'It's because events on the ground shifted. And the nature of the controversies that are served up are different.'
Buzz Feed
13 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
Kamala's Candid Confession Leaves Colbert Stunned
Former Vice President Kamala Harris on Thursday surprised The Late Show host Stephen Colbert with her 'very candid' reason for not wanting to be a public servant right now. Harris, who announced this week that she wouldn't run for California governor, recalled her long career in public office and said, 'I just, for now, I don't want to go back in the system. I think it's broken.' The 2024 Democratic presidential candidate acknowledged the 'many good people' in the public sector and said she 'always believed that as fragile as our democracy is, our systems would be strong enough to defend our most fundamental principles.' But amid President Donald Trump's second term, she said, 'I think right now that they're not as strong as they need to be, and I just don't want to, for now, I don't want to go back in the system. I want to travel the country. I want to listen to people, I want to talk with people, and I don't want it to be transactional, where I'm asking for their vote.' Colbert said: 'To hear you say that it's broken, to hear you say that our systems aren't strong enough, is harrowing.' Harris asked him: 'But it's also evident, isn't it?' She then clarified that it 'doesn't mean we give up.' She added, 'Oh, absolutely not. I am always going to be part of the fight. That is not going to change.' Harris was on the show to promote her new book, 107 Days, which she described as a 'behind-the-scenes' tell-all about her 2024 bid for president, the shortest ever run for the White House after former President Joe Biden abandoned his reelection campaign. At another point in the interview, Colbert noted Harris' warnings about what Trump would do if he won. 'I know you're not here to say, 'I told you so,' but would you like to?' the host asked Harris. She acknowledged her correct predictions but said she didn't foresee 'the capitulation' to the current president, suggesting she had been 'naive.' Elsewhere in the chat, Harris admitted it was months after leaving office that she watched the news because 'I'm just not into self-mutilation' and teased how her husband, former second gentleman Doug Emhoff, 'dropped the ball' on her big 60th birthday last October, which was just weeks before the election. Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images
Hamilton Spectator
15 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trial for Maine man accused of illegally fishing lobster set for 2026
A Maine lobster fisher claiming Indigenous fishing rights after his 2022 arrest off the coast of Deer Island will face a two-week trial next year. Erik D. Francis, 55, of Perry, Maine, appeared by phone Thursday and confirmed court dates in April and May 2026. He faces Coastal Fisheries Protection Act charges related to allegations of fishing from a foreign vessel in New Brunswick waters. According to court documents, he was stopped on Nov. 15, 2022, off the coast of Deer Island by fisheries officials, who seized 36 lobster traps owned by Francis. Francis, who is self-represented, has claimed Indigenous fishing rights as a part of the Peskotomuhkati (Passamaquoddy) Nation, which has communities in Maine and Charlotte County. The Peskotomuhkati people, part of the Peace and Friendship Treaties of 1725, have not been federally recognized in Canada as a First Nation since 1951. In February, lawyer Paul Williams was granted intervenor status on behalf of the three Peskotomuhkati chiefs in order to protect and promote their treaty rights. In June, he had suggested they may need as many as four weeks, given four court days a week and a maximum of eight witnesses. Last week on Thursday, Williams as well as Crown prosecutors Scott Millar and Len McKay appeared by video, with Francis unreachable by phone. Williams said that they were 'trying to simplify the matter' in discussion with the Crown. McKay said they needed to see full reports from experts to decide what they did or did not want to challenge, and suggested setting a few weeks aside. Judge Kelly Ann Winchester said that two weeks had been selected from April 27 to May 1 and May 4 to May 8 in 2026, with a pre-trial conference in February. Williams and the Crown agreed, with Francis needing to confirm the dates. On Thursday this week, Francis apologized for missing the earlier hearing, saying there was a family emergency and he was out of cellphone service. He confirmed that the trial dates worked for him, and Winchester said he would have to appear in person. Francis is also facing a trial in December on Coastal Fisheries Protection Act charges related to a second incident Sept. 20, 2023, of unlawfully fishing for lobster in a foreign vessel and obstructing a fisheries officer along with Erik S. Francis, 28, of Perry, Maine, and Tyler Francis, 26, of Herrington, Maine. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
