You’d think choosing the leader for over a billion people would take forever. Like, months of arguing in a smoke-filled room. But honestly? Modern cardinals are surprisingly efficient. When people search for the longest papal conclave in 21st century history, they’re usually looking for a marathon.
Well, here is the reality check: we haven't actually had a long one yet.
In the world of the Vatican, "long" is a relative term. In 1268, it took cardinals nearly three years to pick a guy. They literally had to tear the roof off the building and put the electors on bread and water to make them hurry up. Compared to that, the 2013 election that gave us Pope Francis was a weekend getaway. But in the context of our current century, it holds the title. It lasted just a bit longer than the one before it.
The 2013 Papal Conclave Explained (Simply)
So, why was the 2013 election the longest so far?
Basically, the 2005 conclave—the first of the 2000s—was a sprint. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was such a dominant force that he locked it down in just four ballots over two days. It was almost a foregone conclusion.
Fast forward to March 2013. Pope Benedict XVI had done something nobody saw coming: he retired. The Church was in a bit of a tailspin. There was no "heir apparent" this time. The cardinals walked into the Sistine Chapel on March 12, 2013, with a lot of heavy lifting to do.
🔗 Read more: St. Joseph MO Weather Forecast: What Most People Get Wrong About Northwest Missouri Winters
It took five ballots.
That might not sound like much, but it made it the "longest" because 2005 only took four. It lasted roughly 25 to 26 hours of actual deliberation before the white smoke finally billowed out of that tiny chimney.
What went down inside the Sistine Chapel?
Cardinals aren't supposed to talk about what happens inside. They actually install "Faraday cages" and signal jammers now to make sure nobody is tweeting from under their red robes. Seriously. But secrets in Rome have a way of leaking eventually.
On the first night, things were a mess. No one had a majority.
Reports suggest that Cardinal Angelo Scola, an Italian, was the early frontrunner. He had about 30 votes. Right behind him? Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio from Argentina with 26.
💡 You might also like: Snow This Weekend Boston: Why the Forecast Is Making Meteorologists Nervous
Then you had Marc Ouellet from Canada and Sean O’Malley from Boston pulling some numbers. It was a wide-open field. One elector even reportedly misspelled Bergoglio’s name as "Broglio" on their ballot. Even at the highest levels of the Church, typos happen.
By the second day, the momentum shifted hard.
- Morning Ballots: Bergoglio started gaining. The "Latin American block" was strong, and cardinals from other regions began to realize he was the bridge candidate they needed.
- The Tipping Point: During the fifth and final ballot, once Bergoglio hit the magic number of 77 votes, the chapel erupted in applause.
- The Final Tally: He ended up with about 85 votes.
Why the longest papal conclave in 21st century wasn't actually that long
You might be wondering why they don't stay in there for weeks anymore.
Information moves fast. Even though they are "locked in," cardinals spend the weeks before the conclave talking. They have "General Congregations" where they discuss the state of the Church. By the time the doors actually lock, most of the deal-making is done.
Also, it’s exhausting. Most of these men are in their 70s and 80s. Living in the Casa Santa Marta (the Vatican's guest house) and spending all day sitting on hard chairs in a chapel isn't exactly a vacation. They want to get it right, but they also want to get it done.
📖 Related: Removing the Department of Education: What Really Happened with the Plan to Shutter the Agency
The "Horse Race" of 2005 vs. 2013
If you look at the 2005 conclave, it was basically Ratzinger versus everyone else.
An anonymous diary that leaked later showed Ratzinger led from the very first vote. Bergoglio was actually the runner-up back then, too! But he reportedly didn't want the job at the time. He supposedly begged the other cardinals not to vote for him so Ratzinger could win quickly and avoid a schism.
In 2013, the vibe was different. There were massive scandals involving the Vatican Bank and "Vatileaks." The cardinals weren't just looking for a theologian; they were looking for a reformer. That’s why it took those extra rounds of voting. They had to be sure.
Actionable Insights for Church History Buffs
If you're following the mechanics of how this works, keep these things in mind for the next time the "Sede Vacante" (empty chair) happens:
- Watch the "General Congregations": The real election happens in the meetings before the conclave. Whoever is giving the most impressive speeches in those daily meetings is usually the one who wins.
- The Two-Thirds Rule: A candidate needs two-thirds of the votes. In both 21st-century elections, that number was 77. This high bar is why even a small group of "protest" voters can block a candidate and force the conclave to go longer.
- The Age Factor: Since Benedict’s resignation, there is more pressure to elect someone slightly younger who can handle the physical toll of the papacy.
The next conclave—whenever that may be—will likely be larger than both 2005 and 2013. With more cardinals from Africa, Asia, and Latin America than ever before, the "longest" title might actually be challenged. When you have electors who don't all speak the same language or hang out in the same Roman circles, reaching a consensus just takes more time.
For now, the 2013 election remains the longest of our era. It was a 48-hour window that changed the direction of the Catholic Church, proving that even in a 2,000-year-old institution, a few extra hours of talk can lead to a massive shift in history.