The Cebu journalism community is mourning the unexpected passing of Max Limpag, a distinctive personality known for his fearless reporting on Church-related issues. His death has created a significant void in Philippine media, particularly in covering religious institutions with critical integrity.
Investigative Pursuits and Church Accountability
Limpag's recent journalistic work focused on two particularly sensitive Church matters: the suspicious disappearance of valuable Church treasures from Boljoon parish and the contentious use of Latin by certain renegade religious groups. His approach to religious reporting was characterized by a fundamental principle: no church official should be considered beyond questioning.
This commitment to accountability once led Limpag to enter an archdiocesan gathering intended exclusively for clergy members. His presence didn't endear him to some clerics who believed their role involved maintaining the Church's positive public image above all else.
The Archbishop Interview Incident
One particularly telling incident involved an overzealous cleric who, apparently without authorization from Archbishop Jose Palma, formed a protective cordon around the archbishop to prevent Limpag from conducting an interview. The journalist responded by publicly protesting the obstruction on social media platforms.
It later emerged that Archbishop Palma had been willing to grant the interview, contradicting the cleric's actions. Limpag consistently maintained that a journalist's duty isn't to make the Church appear favorable—that role belongs to hired propagandists. Instead, he argued, journalists must report facts as they find them.
In a demonstration of their complex relationship, Archbishop Palma later gave Limpag a copy of a book written by the author of the original tribute. Limpag messaged the author about the gift, adding with characteristic wit: "I just did not tell him that I already have a signed copy."
Historical Precedents for Church Criticism
To honor Limpag's legacy, the original tribute author cites several canonized saints and respected Catholics throughout history who criticized clergy members, demonstrating that questioning religious authorities has deep roots in Catholic tradition.
Saint Bernard of Clairvaux addressed corrupt clergy directly: "...rare are the ones who are not devoted exclusively to their own interests. They love their perquisites, and they love them more than they love Christ." He similarly challenged Pope Eugene III, his former student, about extravagance contrasting with Saint Peter's simplicity.
Saint Peter Damian condemned ambitious bishops "craving church honors with a desire hotter than the vapors of Etna" who shamefully served the powerful.
Dante Alighieri, in his Divine Comedy, imagined Pope Nicholas III in hell for simony, questioning: "Tell me now, how much treasure did our Lord require of Saint Peter before he placed the keys in his hands?"
Ludolph the Carthusian noted in A Life of Christ that the devil persecutes the Church "by illicit movements and inordinate desires" during times of prosperity—a book that significantly influenced Saint Ignatius of Loyola's conversion.
Max Limpag's writing about the Church emerged from this same tradition: a desire to see the institution better configured to Jesus's original vision. His work establishes that future journalists who similarly challenge religious authorities should be welcomed rather than resisted. The question remains when, or if, another journalist of Limpag's courage and principle will emerge in Cebu journalism.
Rest in peace, Max Limpag.
