Papal conclaves: Shortest, fastest, lesser-known stories and surprises
Insiders offer fascinating details of when Catholic cardinals meet for the centuries-old practice of electing the next pope.
So when the pope dies, there's funeral, mourning, and the next man up.
It turns out it's neither that simple, nor straightforward: The conclave can pull off some surprises.
With locked doors, smoke signals, and even royal vetoe it s,is one of the oldest and most secretive rituals in the world.
Here's a quick list of fascinating facts about how popes have been chosen across the ages:
'Conclave': May 8
The word "conclave" comes from cum clave ("with a key") as the Church mandated that cardinals be locked in until a pope was chosen. Conclaves are usually held 15 to 20 days after the pope's death. On May 8, cardinals are set to meet for mass at St. Peter's Basilica with the purpose of praying for the wisdom needed to choose the next pope.
#1. Longest conclave lasted nearly 3 years
The 1268–1271 conclave in Viterbo (Italy) dragged on for almost three years because the cardinals couldn't agree.
Citizens finally locked the cardinals in, cut their food supply, and even removed the building's roof to hurry them up, according to The Conclave: A Sometimes Secret and Occasionally Bloody History of Papal Elections, by prominent Catholic historian Michael Walsh Michael Walsh (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).
#2. Shortest conclave: It lasted just a few hours
The 1503 conclave that elected Pius III lasted only a few hours — practically a "snap election." As per Chamberlin's tome on popes (1969). The second-shortest was Pope Pius XII (1939), who was elected on just the third ballot, within less than 24 hours of the conclave starting.
#3. Youngest pope elected
Pope Benedict IX was elected in the early 11th century — at around age 20 (or even younger by some accounts).
Pope Benedict IX (Latin: Benedictus IX; c. 1012 – c. 1056), born Theophylactus of Tusculum in Rome, was the bishop of Rome and ruler of the Papal States for three periods between October 1032 and July 1048. Aged about 20 when first elected, he is the youngest pope in history.
He later resigned, was re-elected.
#4. Mob violence influenced the 1378 conclave
After Pope Gregory XI's death, a Roman mob stormed the building, demanding an Italian pope, threatening to kill the cardinals unless they elected an Italian pope.
Tensions got so bad that, according to some accounts, arguments in the conclave almost led to physical fights among cardinals.
Fearing for their lives, the cardinals rushed to elect Bartolomeo Prignano (Pope Urban VI).
Urban turned out to be so harsh and temperamental that some cardinals later tried to 'un-elect' him and elect another pope — triggering the massive Western Schism (where there were two, then three 'popes' at once). (Source: Norwich, Absolute Monarchs: A History of the Papacy, 2011).
#5. A hermit was elected pope (then quit)
In 1294, the cardinals elected Celestine V, a hermit living in a cave, out of desperation. He resigned after five months — one of the very few papal resignations in history. (Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes, 1997).
#6. Latin confusion at modern conclaves
Latin is the official language used inside the conclave, but by the 20th century many cardinals were poor Latin speakers, causing confusion during ballots and discussions. (Allen, Conclave: The Politics, Personalities, and Process of the Next Papal Election, 2002.)
#7. One conclave had a fake "smoke signal" accident
In 1958, during the conclave that elected Pope John XXIII, white smoke initially appeared by accident — causing premature celebration before the election was finalised. (Collins, Absolute Power: The Vatican in the Twentieth Century, 2001.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
13 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Israeli author David Grossman brands Gaza war a 'genocide'
Israeli writer David Grossman has proclaimed the assault on the Gaza Strip a "genocide", adding to a growing chorus of condemnation of the war. In an interview published on Friday in the Italian daily La Repubblica, Grossman said the bloodshed in Gaza broke his "heart". "For years I refused to use the term 'genocide'. But now I can't help but use it, after what I read in the newspapers, after the images I saw and after talking to people who were there," he said. "I want to speak as someone who has done everything possible to avoid calling Israel a genocidal state - and now, with immense pain and a broken heart, I have to face what is happening before my eyes. 'Genocide'. It's an avalanche word: once you say it, it only gets bigger, like an avalanche. And it brings even more destruction and suffering." Asked what he thought when he read the death toll in Gaza, he replied: "I feel bad." New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters At least 98 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks in the last 24 hours, with another 1,079 wounded, the Palestinian health ministry is reporting. Of that figure, 39 were aid seekers. The latest deaths bring the overall toll of Palestinians killed in Israeli attacks in Gaza since October 2023 to 60,430, with 148,722 wounded. Hospitals in Gaza have also recorded seven deaths, including a child, as a result of Israeli-imposed starvation in the last 24 hours. Grossman said that the scenes of starvation and killing in Gaza had particular resonance for him. "Putting the words 'Israel' and 'famine' together, doing so based on our history, our supposed sensitivity to the suffering of humanity, the moral responsibility we have always said we have towards every human being, not just the Jews... all of this is devastating," he said. Grossman added that he remained "desperately loyal" to the idea of a two-state solution, "mainly because I see no alternative".
Middle East Eye
16 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Karim Khan investigation: Former ICC judges criticise handling of complaint against prosecutor
Former judges at the International Criminal Court have criticised the court's oversight body over its handling of an ongoing investigation into a complaint of alleged sexual misconduct brought against the court's chief prosecutor, Karim Khan. Speaking to Middle East Eye, two former judges at the court said they were gravely concerned by the way in which Khan had been publicly identified as the subject of a complaint, and questioned the need for an external investigation into his alleged misconduct. Cuno Tarfusser, an Italian judge who worked at the court from 2009 to 2019, told MEE: "I am deeply disturbed, even scandalised, by the way the proceedings against Karim Khan seem to be unfolding." Another former judge, speaking on condition of anonymity, told MEE he feared that a lack of due process had taken the investigation into 'bandit country' in which 'anything can happen'. The investigation by the United Nations' Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) was commissioned by Paivi Kaukoranta, the President of the Assembly of State Parties, the ICC's oversight body, after details of a sexual misconduct complaint against Khan were leaked to the media in October. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Khan was publicly identified by Kaukoranta as the subject of a complaint, even though the ICC's own investigative body, the Internal Oversight Mechanism (IOM), had closed two investigations of its own, without publicly naming the chief prosecutor, after the complainant, a female ICC staff member, declined to cooperate. Announcing the OIOS inquiry the next month, Kaukoranta said the IOM had investigated the complaint against Khan on the basis of requests by a third party and by Khan himself, and acknowledged the IOM was 'competent to investigate such allegations'. Exclusive: How Karim Khan's Israel war crimes probe was derailed by threats, leaks and sex claims Read More » But she said that 'the particular circumstances of the case, including the IOM's victim-centred approach, and perceptions of possible and future conflicts of interest' had led her to seek an external investigation. Both judges told MEE they believed Khan had been denied due process and the right to privacy in being named by Kaukoranta and by her decision to outsource the investigation to the OIOS. The former judge said it was his view that Khan should not have been publicly identified before the investigation was completed, commenting: "It's a genie that you can't put back in the bottle." Tarfusser told MEE the investigation appeared to have been 'tailored' for Khan. 'It is unprecedented and a shame within an institution based on the rule of law that a personalised proceeding is created just for Karim Khan,' he said. 'This, far from being decisive, threatens to permanently damage the credibility of the court itself. This way of doing things, these procedures, are known to autocratic states, not to states or institutions based on legality and law.' The other former judge said he was concerned that the handling of the complaint would erode trust in the court's procedures. He said it could discourage future complainants from coming forward because of a lack of confidence that their complaint would be dealt with correctly. Cuno Tarfusser told MEE he was "scandalised" by how the investigation into Khan had unfolded (ICC/Flickr) 'It damages the whole structure of the complaints procedure,' he said. The complaint against Khan is based on allegations of sexual misconduct made by a female ICC staff member, but was initially reported to the IOM by a member of Khan's office rather than the complainant herself. Khan, who has been chief prosecutor at the ICC since 2021, has strenuously denied all of the allegations against him. He is understood to have been interviewed by OIOS investigators in early May and to have cooperated with the investigation. Khan was forced to step away on leave later in May following the publication of new allegations against him, including claims that he had sexually assaulted the complainant on a number of occasions over a period of almost a year. Khan's lawyers said in a statement at the time: "Our client has decided to take a period of leave, not least as the wildly inaccurate and speculative media focus on the matter is detracting from his ability properly to focus on his job. 'Our client remains the Prosecutor, has not stepped down and has no intention of doing so.' But new questions about the investigation into Khan were raised this week after MEE revealed details of a pressure campaign exerted on the prosecutor which sought to derail his investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories. MEE reported that an initial complaint of sexual harassment was made against Khan in May 2024 as he was in the final stages of preparing to apply to the court for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his then-defence minister, Yoav Gallant. The allegations re-emerged in October 2024, as the ICC was preparing to issue the warrants, when details of the initial complaint were circulated to journalists and on social media. It was these allegations which prompted the ASP to commission the OIOS investigation. Then, in May this year, reports that Khan was accused of sexual assault, as first reported by the Wall Street Journal, broke just as Khan was reported to be seeking further arrest warrants for Israeli officials. The complainant told MEE that her complaint had 'nothing whatsoever to do with the Court's investigation into Palestine', and said she is not affiliated with, or acting on behalf of, any state or external actor. She said any suggestion that her complaint was politically motivated is 'highly inappropriate… offensive and unfounded'. She said she continued to support all investigations under the ICC's jurisdiction. French newspaper Le Monde on Friday also published details of a campaign against Khan and others working at the court. It quoted British lawyer Andrew Cayley, who oversaw the ICC's Palestine investigation, as saying that he had been told by Dutch intelligence that he was at risk. He said in December he had been directly threatened: "I was told I was an enemy of Israel and that I should watch my back." Cayley quit the court earlier this year after being warned by the British foreign office that he was at risk of being targeted by US sanctions. The judge who spoke on condition of anonymity told MEE the investigation into the complaint against Khan needed to look into allegations of suspected interference in the work of the prosecutor's office. He noted that a lot of people had an interest in damaging the prosecutor and the court, and said judges working at the court had always had to deal with "a political undercurrent from one source or another". Both judges told MEE their concerns were shared by a number of other former and current ICC judges. The court has faced punitive and hostile measures over its investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes. Khan was subjected to US sanctions in February, and the US sanctioned four current ICC judges in June. Speaking last month at a meeting of the ASP, the US State Department legal advisor, Reed Rubinstein, warned the court's oversight body that 'all options are on the table' if the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant are not withdrawn. It remains unclear when the investigation into Khan will be completed and what will happen next. In June, the ASP Presidency announced that the OIOS's final report would be sent for assessment to an external panel of judicial experts to help consideration of 'appropriate next steps'. It said the work of the panel would be conducted on a confidential basis. Asked for comment, the office of the ASP Presidency referred MEE to its public statements about the allegations against Khan and the OIOS investigation. It said the findings of the investigation would be 'handled in a transparent manner' once it was concluded.
Middle East Eye
a day ago
- Middle East Eye
Israeli author David Grossman says Gaza war is genocide
Israeli author David Grossman has said that his country is committing genocide in Gaza. 'For many years, I refused to use that term: genocide,' the writer told Italian daily La Repubblica in an interview published on Friday. 'But now, after the images I have seen and after talking to people who were there, I can't help using it.' 'This word is an avalanche: Once you say it, it just gets bigger, like an avalanche. And it adds even more destruction and suffering,' he said. Grossman's works have won many international prizes, including Israel's top literary prize in 2018. His comments come days after two major Israeli rights groups also used the term amid growing global alarm over Israeli-imposed starvation in Gaza.
