WHAT HAPPENED?

By Tim Rohr

At 23:00 in this video, Archbishop Jimenez begins his homily. After a few minutes, he begins to describe what happened to Fr. Mike.  The Mass took place on January 2, 2026, the day Fr. Mike died. 

Archbishop Jimenez describes Fr. Mike's arrival at the clergy Christmas party "last Tuesday,"which would have been December 30, 2025. The party was at the social hall in Maina. Jimenez says that Fr. Mike left the party early and then sent him a text saying that he wasn't feeling well. 

The next day, December 31, 2025, Jimenez published the News Release advising that Fr. Mike had been hospitalized that morning. 

This is relevant given that a certain "Anonymous" appears to be adamant in inferring that Fr. Mike, after being assigned to St. Joseph in Inarajan, continued to reside at St. Anthony's, and thus experienced no particular hardship in accessing medical care:

AnonymousJanuary 3, 2026 at 6:05 PM

Pale' Mike was still living at the St. Anthony rectory.

"Antonio" attempted to clarify:

AntonioJanuary 3, 2026 at 8:25 PM

This was only the case for the first few weeks after the reshuffling of priests, as his soon-to-be living space in Inarajan was still being prepared. Later on, yes, he would occasionally stop by St. Anthony Church and even stay for brief periods there whenever he was asked to either cover masses or undergo grueling dialysis treatment.

However, Anonymous insisted:

AnonymousJanuary 4, 2026 at 1:14 PM

He lived at St Anthony rectory, which can house 8 priests. He was stricken in his bedroom there. Fact.

Anonymous appears to be a member of the clergy who had no "love" for Fr. Mike, or at least someone close to a member of the clergy who is vested in running interference for the reason Fr. Mike was assigned to a parish the furthest away from the critical medical care he needed.

From how Archbishop Jimenez describes it, it appears that Fr. Mike, upon leaving the Christmas party on December 30, knew he wouldn't make it to Inarajan and decided to stay the night at St. Anthony, which is why he "was stricken in his bedroom there," as Anonymous reports.

DAMAGE CONTROL?

By Tim Rohr

“…we ask everyone to please refrain from circulating rumors and unofficial, unfounded information.” - Archbishop Ryan Jimenez

PDF

Strange words from Archbishop Jimenez tacked on to the announcement regarding Fr. Mike Crisostomo's hospitalization a couple days ago.

And now, now that Fr. Mike is dead, those words are stranger still.

What "rumors and unofficial, unfounded information" could have been "circulating," and apparently in such a heightened way that the archbishop felt moved to warn everyone to stop it? 

Fr. Mike had been ill for a very long time. He had been visibly wasting away before all of us. He was, according to what he told me personally two years ago, receiving dialysis treatment 3 days a week for 3.5 hours each day.  I believe that as his disease got worse, he required even more frequent dialysis. He also was having trouble with his fistula - the access point on his arm for his dialysis. 

Strokes are not uncommon for people who suffer with diabetes, and it came as no surprise when I heard that Fr. Mike had one. But the archbishop's words WERE a surprise: "...please refrain from circulating rumors and unofficial, unfounded information." It sounds like the archbishop is afraid of something. Damage control?

Now, compare Fr. Mike's death to the death of another priest which in fact did very much warrant the circulation of rumors and unofficial information: the death of Fr. Fr Antonino Caminiti almost exactly one year ago (Dec. 14, 2024). 

The reason Fr. "Nino's" death warranted rumors isn't hard to guess at: he had been accused of sexual misconduct with a parishioner, he had been removed from the parish by Archbishop Jimenez, and he died while in the "custody" of the same archbishop.  

YET! There was NOTHING from the archbishop about the sudden and mysterious death of Fr. Antonio Caminiti other than the usual announcements about services and burial - not even a mention about the cause of death.

Additionally, pursuant to the archbishop's letter of Nov. 12, 2024, Fr. Nino was under investigation: “...the preliminary investigation was conducted and the allegation is now under further investigation as recommended by the Independent Review Board."

Has anyone heard a peep about this investigation in what is now more than one year? Nothing, as far as I know. Just because the accused is dead doesn't mean the investigation should die too. But apparently it did. 

If in fact, Fr. Nino engaged in sexual misconduct with a parishioner, this should be known. And if he didn't, then his name should be cleared. 

In the exposition of the horrible scandal this diocese has had to suffer through for ten years now, there were several dead priests who were "on trial." Just because they were dead was no cause for sudden silence about the allegations against them - as it appears to be in the Caminiti case. 

But NOTHING. (But then again, Caminiti was a Neo.)

Meanwhile, Fr. Mike, who, as already mentioned, was very visibly ill for the last several years, has a stroke and the archbishop jumps out to do what can only be characterized as DAMAGE CONTROL.

Why? 

P.S. Note that the NEWS RELEASE is not signed by anyone and only says "sent by Tony Diaz." That's exceptionally bad form. This is what the goons who ran the asylum for Apuron did: just sent out all kinds of stuff on archdiocesan letterhead but from no one. We're not going to let that go. If it's on the letterhead then it's from the archbishop. Period.