Understanding the 2013 Papal Conclave
The 2013 papal conclave took place from March 12 to March 13, resulting in the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope Francis. It lasted four ballots across two days — relatively fast by historical standards, but notable for the circumstances surrounding it. Benedict XVI had resigned, which was unprecedented in modern times, and that created a lot of uncertainty about how the cardinals would proceed. The 2013 conclave isn't actually the longest in history. That title belongs to the 1268–1271 conclave, which lasted nearly three years because the cardinals couldn't agree and were literally locked in a building in Viterbo with no roof. But the 2013 election is important for different reasons. It was the first conclave in the digital age where social media played a role, the first after a resignation rather than a death, and it produced a pope from the Americas — the first from the Southern Hemisphere. The rules are governed by Universi Dominici Gregis, the apostolic constitution issued by John Paul II in 1996, with modifications added in 2007. The core mechanism is straightforward: cardinals under age 80 vote in the Sistine Chapel, and a two-thirds majority is required to elect a pope. If no one reaches that threshold after multiple ballots, the process can theoretically continue indefinitely.
Each ballot involves two paper ballots per cardinal. The Scrutineers count them, the Chancellor records the results, and the Camerlengo verifies everything. If there's no result, the ballots are burned with chemicals to produce black smoke. If there is a result, white smoke follows. The Nulla Assumenda provision — added by Benedict XVI in 2007 — allowed the conclave to continue past a deadlock if the cardinals voted to extend the process, though this hasn't been formally triggered. One thing people miss is that the voting isn't just about preference. It's a series of strategic calculations. Cardinals know that early ballots tend to reflect initial biases, and the conversation changes as the votes progress. By the fifth or sixth ballot, the field usually narrows significantly. In 2013, Bergoglio wasn't the frontrunner on the first ballot — he was somewhat of a dark horse who gained momentum as the voting continued.
What Made 2013 Different
The resignation of Benedict XVI changed the atmosphere. Previous conclaves assumed the previous pope would die in office, which creates a different kind of urgency. A resignation means the Church is making a deliberate institutional choice, and the cardinals knew they were operating in uncharted territory. There was also the question of whether to change the voting rules themselves. Some cardinals reportedly pushed for a simple majority after a certain number of ballots, but that didn't happen. Another factor was the information leak problem. During the 2005 conclave, there were allegations that someone inside was communicating results to outsiders. In 2013, the Vatican took this more seriously. The rules around communication were tightened, and there was a visible effort to prevent any internal leaks. Still, the camerlengo at the time, Cardinal Sean O'Malley, acknowledged that complete secrecy is nearly impossible to guarantee in a process involving dozens of powerful men in a confined space for days. I spent time researching the procedural details of this conclave, and one thing that came up repeatedly was the tension between tradition and practicality. The cardinals in 2013 were acutely aware that the world was watching. Every decision — from how long the voting sessions lasted to whether they'd allow any contact with the outside world — carried symbolic weight. Bergoglio's choice of name, for instance, wasn't random. He reportedly chose Francis because of his admiration for Francis of Assisi and because he wanted to signal a pastoral, humble direction for the Church.
Get the Full Details
Common Misunderstandings
There are several myths about how conclaves work. One is that the cardinals vote by secret written ballot and that's the end of it. In reality, there's a significant period of discussion between ballots. The cardinals meet in groups, pray, and talk. The nature of that discussion shapes the subsequent votes. Another myth is that the smoke from the Sistine Chapel chimney is the only signal. In practice, the Vatican also sends a formal announcement — Habemus Papam — and the new pope appears on the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica. A more technical misconception involves the counting process. The ballots aren't just counted once. Each ballot is read aloud by the Scrutineers, recorded, and then a second verification is done. If there's any discrepancy, the ballots are re-examined. In 2013, there were no public reports of counting disputes, which suggests the system worked as designed. But I've found that in closer conclaves, these verification steps can become points of contention, and the cardinals have to rely on the integrity of the officers overseeing the process.
Why 2013 Still Matters
The election of Pope Francis shifted the center of gravity in the Catholic Church. The Church has grown significantly in the Global South, and a pope from Argentina reflected that demographic reality. The 2013 conclave also demonstrated that the Church could adapt its processes without fundamentally changing its core — the voting mechanism remained the same, but the context and the stakes felt different. If you're looking to study this further, the primary sources are the acts of the conclave itself, which were made public in part, and the memoirs and accounts of participants. The book The Summit by Andrea Tornielli provides a detailed insider account, and the Vatican's own documentation of the Universi Dominici Gregis is the authoritative reference for the rules. The 2013 conclave remains one of the better-documented elections in recent papal history, partly because the Cardinals wanted transparency after the scandals of previous decades.
