MORE THAN A PAPABILE

By Herman M. Lagon

Before anything else, this is not an argument against Pope Leo XIV, nor an attempt to revisit a decision the Catholic Church has already prayerfully made. Pope Leo XIV now leads the Church inspiringly, and Catholics receive that choice with faith and communion. This discourse, instead, is about Cardinal Luis Antonio “Chito” Tagle—a Filipino whose name was routinely listed among the Church’s leading papabili for well over a decade. Some names fade after a conclave. Cardinal Tagle’s never really did. From the election of Pope Francis in 2013 to the conclave after his death in 2025, he remained among those many believed could one day lead the Catholic Church. Whether or not that moment ever came, his journey revealed something deeper about the kind of leader many Catholics quietly hoped for.

When Pope Francis died, the world once again looked toward the Sistine Chapel, waiting for history to unfold. Newsrooms dug out old lists of papabili. Analysts at the Vatican ran through the usual names. Around here in the Philippines, the talk naturally shifted to one question: Could a Filipino finally be pope? Of those named, Cardinal Tagle stood out—not only because of his nationality, but because he had spent years quietly earning the respect of Catholics across continents.

His attractiveness has never depended primarily on an excellent résumé, though few churchmen can claim one as distinguished. He graduated as the valedictorian and summa cum laude from the Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU) in 1977. From the Jesuit-administered San Jose Seminary, he was ordained in 1982 and served as Bishop of Imus before being appointed the 32nd Archbishop of Manila.  Pope Benedict XVI made him a cardinal in 2012 and Pope Francis later gave him one of the Vatican’s most important jobs, designating him to head the Church’s efforts on evangelization. He is currently Pro-Prefect of the Section for First Evangelization and New Particular Churches of the Dicastery for Evangelization, and holds many other leadership posts in the Roman Curia.

And church history tells us that popes are rarely chosen because they have the longest curriculum vitae.

What has always distinguished Tagle is the man behind the titles.

There are cardinals admired for their intellect. Tagle is admired for that—and for something harder to earn.

People leave conversations with him feeling heard. They remember someone who smiles easily, chats with children without pretension, and gives his full attention to whoever is in front of him. When emotion surfaces in his preaching, it feels honest, not rehearsed.

His scholarship earned him respect. His humanity earned him affection.

But knowledge alone does not account for why people still admire him.

Perhaps the solution is in how he has decided to exert authority. Tagle has always preferred accompaniment above applause throughout his service. As Bishop of Imus, he was recognized for living simply and for being close to the common people. Even when he became Archbishop of Manila and later served in Rome, he kept that pastoral sense.  Be it refugees or young people or families in poverty, he rarely sounded like a man from above. He talked like a man who was willing to go beside them.

That style closely reflected the pastoral vision of Pope Francis.

When Francis reorganized the Roman Curia and placed renewed emphasis on evangelization, Tagle was entrusted with one of its most strategic offices. It was more than an administrative appointment. It reflected confidence in a churchman whose understanding of evangelization centered less on expanding institutions than on reaching people where they were. In many ways, Tagle embodied Francis’ dream of a Church that goes to the margins rather than waiting for the margins to come to it.

Still, admiration should never prevent honest reflection.

Like many public figures, Tagle has not escaped criticism. Some believed he could have spoken more forcefully during politically turbulent moments in the country, specially under the Duterte regime. Others wished he had taken stronger public positions on certain ecclesiastical controversies. To critics, his measured tone sometimes appeared overly cautious.

Such observations are food for thought.

At the same time, they may also show something of the kind of leader Tagle has always chosen to be. He has rarely sought confrontation for its own sake. His impulse has been to convince not to condemn, to accompany not to correct, to construct bridges where others chose barriers. Whether you agree with that approach or not, it is a consistent philosophy of pastoral leadership, not indecision.

Another problem that is regularly addressed is the Vatican’s relations with China. Because of his Chinese background and his work in evangelization, Tagle has often been linked to the Vatican’s delicate diplomatic moves. His public reserve has been viewed by some as too much caution. Others know that sometimes diplomacy happens because not all conversations are in front of the cameras. Holding that tension is one of the most difficult jobs that a senior church leader has.

Maybe what made Tagle an interesting papal candidate was that he did not promise spectacular reforms or sweeping transformations. This was, he said, continuity, but from a very Asian perspective. His ministry always spoke about listening before speaking, mercy before judgement and dialogue before division. In a Church increasingly influenced by populations in Asia, Africa and Latin America, those virtues took on increasing prominence.

For us Filipinos, dreaming of Cardinal Tagle as pope was a feeling much beyond national pride. It urged many to imagine the universal Church being led by someone who has grown up in a country where faith is woven into the fabric of life; where families pray through typhoons, political uncertainty, poverty, migration and hope; where pakikipagkapwa—our shared humanity—is not just a cultural ideal but a daily practice. His election would have been not only the emergence of an Asian pope but a growing acceptance of the fact that the Church’s future lies more and more in areas traditionally thought of as its peripheries.

But conclaves have always been humbling experiences.

“The old line in the Vatican is that he who enters a conclave as pope leaves as a cardinal. It conveys the mystery of papal elections, where prayer often leads to unexpected outcomes.

It happened once more.

Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost was elected Pope Leo XIV by the College of Cardinals. His election astonished many observers, but it opened a new chapter in the life of the Catholic Church. Around the world Catholics greeted him in prayer, with the knowledge that the conclave had come to its discernment.

Does this reduce the importance of Cardinal Tagle?

Not a bit.

Leadership in the Church has never been based exclusively on whether one becomes pope. Some of its finest servants never sat in the Chair of Peter. His ministry in Rome, his theological contributions, his pastoral witness and his ability to relate with individuals from different cultures keep Tagle’s influence alive. He ranks among the most regarded Catholic leaders of his time.

Maybe it is the more profound lesson this event teaches.

The Church did not need another Francis. The Church did not need a Filipino pope because it was time. It needed the person that the cardinals – through prayer and discernment – believed was being called to serve at this juncture in history. That man is Leo XIV, the Pope.

Cardinal Tagle’s experience, at the same time, teaches us that genuine leaders are not measured by the positions they finally acquire, but by the lives they delicately touch along the journey. His journey demonstrates that scholarship need not overshadow humility, that authority need not suppress love, and that compassion remains one of the Church’s greatest sources of legitimacy.

Maybe it is why his name still rings long after the conclave is done.

Not because he became pope.

But because he never needed the title to become the kind of shepherd who inspires hope.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a ‘student of and for life’ who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world that is grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views herewith do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.