Story: He pointed a gun at the priest's head and said he would kill him unless he told what he was said to him during confession

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mdgspencer

Guest
“In 1927, during the government’s continuing persecution of the Church, Fr. Correa was arrested by soldiers as he was bringing Viaticum to a woman invalid. Accused of being part of the armed Cristero defense, he was jailed in Zacatecas, and then in Durango. On 5 February 1927, Fr. Correa was asked by General Eulogio Ortiz, to hear the confessions of some imprisoned members of the Cristeros, an uprising of Catholic men who decided to fight back against the persecution of the Church led by Mexico’s president Plutarco Elias Calles. Father Correa agreed to administer the Sacrament of Confession to these prisoners, but afterward General Ortiz demanded to know what the condemned prisoners had confessed. Fr. Correa refused. General Ortiz then pointed a gun at Fr. Correa’s head and threatened him with immediate death. Fr. Correa continued to refuse, and at dawn on February 6, 1927, he was taken to the cemetery on the outskirts of Durango and shot through the head.”

(He was beatified by Pope John Paul II on November 22, 1992, and then canonized on May 21, 2000 during the Jubilee of Mexico.)

(This is from an article at https://www.revolvy.com/page/Mateo-Correa-Magallanes )
 
Last edited:
Such strength and trust. 💙

Similar things happened in England during the English Reformation. Confession was viewed as an opportunity to pass treasonous information on to others.
 
midori said:
Such strength and trust. 💙

Similar things happened in England during the English Reformation. Confession was viewed as an opportunity to pass treasonous information on to others.
Click to expand...
Fascinating. In the debate about whether priests should be compelled to disclose Child Abuse heard in the confessional some people pointed out that this opens up the way to other “heinous” crimes being subject to the same law, with the state deciding what is “heinous”.

It’s interesting to know that the state has previously attempted to force the breaking of the seal for “treason”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top