Remembering Max Limpag: A Courageous Voice in Cebu Journalism Spotlighting Church Issues

The recent passing of Max Limpag represents a significant loss to journalism in Cebu, particularly due to his distinctive approach to covering sensitive Church-related matters. Known for his fearless reporting, Limpag consistently challenged the status quo, even when his investigations brought him into conflict with church authorities.

Though personally acquainted with him, colleagues in the professional journalism community are best suited to articulate the depth of the void his departure has created. However, his focus on the Church’s transparency, especially concerning the disappearance of sacred artifacts in Boljoon parish and the persistent use of Latin by dissenting groups, sets him apart.

Limpag was unwavering in his principle that no church official should be immune to scrutiny. His determined quest for the truth once led him to attend an archdiocesan gathering intended only for clergy. This act, among others, earned him opposition from certain clerics who preferred the Church’s image to remain unchallenged. On one occasion, an overzealous cleric, acting without apparent authorization from Archbishop Jose Palma, physically prevented Limpag from interviewing the Archbishop. In response, Limpag publicly aired his grievances via social media, revealing that the Archbishop had in fact been willing to engage with him.

Limpag succinctly summarized his philosophy: "It is not the job of a journalist to make the Church look good. The Church can hire propagandists if she wants. But the task of a journalist is to report facts as he or she sees them." He later informed a colleague that the Archbishop had gifted him a signed book, which he already possessed.

To honor Limpag’s legacy, it is fitting to embrace his fearless journalistic spirit and affirm that critique of clergy, when grounded in truth and integrity, is not only acceptable but necessary. This stance is not without historical precedent among devout Catholics, including several canonized saints. For instance, St. Bernard of Clairvaux openly criticized certain clergy for prioritizing personal interests over spiritual duties. He condemned the trappings of wealth and power that some church leaders indulged in, contrasting them with the humble example of Saint Peter.

Similarly, St. Peter Damian censured bishops for their greed and political alliances, while the poet Dante Alighieri famously denounced Pope Nicholas III for simony in his Divine Comedy—a vivid portrayal of ecclesiastical corruption.

Ludolph of Saxony, a Carthusian monk, observed that the Church's greatest persecution today arises not from external heretics but from internal corruptions fueled by "illicit movements and inordinate desires." These critical perspectives echo Limpag’s own pursuit of a Church more aligned with the ideals Christ envisioned.

Max Limpag’s writings were motivated by a deep desire for reform and transparency within the Church institution. His work serves as an enduring example for future journalists willing to ask difficult questions. The journalism community and wider public must welcome such voices when they arise.

Rest in peace, Max Limpag. Your courageous inquiry and commitment to truth will be remembered.