Process, the monthly political analysis publication, published in its July 2026 edition an article, “The case of embezzlement of alms that splashes Cardinal Aguiar Retes” about the financial scandals at the Basilica of Guadalupe. The same was done by the program “Sacro y Profano,” on July 1, when it addressed the topic with the rigor of analysis by specialists converging on one point: the demand for transparency and information on the results of the investigations.
Process reported one of the core elements, the Deloitte audit, which, it claims, is known by the Mexican Episcopal Conference according to statements made to that publication by the director of communication and press, Óscar Cruz, since the “archbishop has kept us informed of the results”; however, he also did not provide details about the inquiries, according to the same publication.
The external audit commissioned to the firm Deloitte is a central part of the prior canonical investigation (IP 17/2025) opened in October 2025 following the complaints of the Guadalupe chapter against the management of the rector, Efraín Hernández Díaz. However, its complete results have not been made public to date. This limits any detailed opinion on findings, rulings, or recommendations, but allows for a rigorous analysis of the process, its context, implications, and the reasons why the opacity surrounding it has deepened the institutional crisis.
What is known with certainty about the audit are data and statements from the ecclesiastical authorities themselves. Carlos Aguiar Retes personally confirmed that Deloitte, one of the four largest auditing firms worldwide, carried out the review of the finances of the Insigne and National Basilica of Guadalupe. The stated objective was to examine the administrative, economic, and patrimonial management denounced by the canons (problems in contracts, removal of reserved documentation, internal climate, financial balances, and even tax issues).
The archbishop’s statement, when announcing the rector’s reinstatement, affirmed before the chapter that “having concluded these processes of the audit carried out by the firm Deloitte and by the ecclesiastical tribunal of our archdiocese, and there being no cause that prevents it,” Hernández Díaz would resume his duties. This formula is deliberately legalistic but terse: it does not state that the rector has been exonerated, nor does it summarize conclusions, nor detail whether irregularities were detected or whether corrections were implemented as a direct consequence of an audit.
Given Deloitte’s profile and the type of entity—a sanctuary with civil recognition as a religious association and a high volume of resources—the audit likely included a review of financial statements and income from donations, sales in shops and collection boxes, the main sources of resources for the Basilica, rents from premises and sales spaces to souvenir or restaurant companies, trusts such as the one that administers El Cerrito and spaces of the complex, as well as expenditures such as the titanic maintenance work, pastoral activities, personnel and operations, in addition to the control of the Basilica’s properties such as the priests’ residences and other properties it owns.
The evaluation of internal controls, especially over cash collection, the alms boxes and systems for collecting coins and bills that generate significant daily volumes, their handling, accounts and donations in other currencies, especially in dollars, and whether their conversion has been to Mexican currency.
The analysis of contracts and acquisitions flagged as problematic by the chapter. Review of regulatory compliance, canon law on temporal goods, and Mexican legislation applicable to religious associations regarding tax obligations before the SAT and due transparency as applicable. Possible forensic or investigative component for irregularities if the initial complaints justified it due to diversions, embezzlement, control weaknesses, or irregular and even illicit handling of the entity’s resources and how the economy of the Archdiocese of Mexico has participated.
The Basilica receives tens of millions of pilgrims per year. Although it does not publish official detailed figures on its direct income, indirect estimates and journalistic reports speak of flows of hundreds of millions of pesos annually in offerings and donations alone, in addition to a much larger tourist economic impact, which in peak periods such as December exceeds 20 billion pesos. This makes an external audit especially relevant due to the volume of cash transactions and the sensitivity of the spiritual and material heritage. Perhaps one of the main, most reliable sources for knowing the financial estimates is from the period of the previous rector, Father Salvador Martínez Ávila, who faced truly extraordinary circumstances such as those of COVID-19, which put the site in financial difficulties due to the drop caused by the pandemic.
The decision not to make the results public, not even an executive summary or the opinion with qualifications, is the most criticized aspect and has direct consequences such as the erosion of trust: the faithful, donors, canons, and external observers cannot verify whether the denounced practices of economic management irregularities or lack of control were corrected. The rector’s reinstatement without public explanation generated the perception that the audit served more as a formality than as an instrument of accountability.
No less important is institutional legitimacy. In canon law, decisions on removal or reinstatement of offices must be based on evidence. The formula used by the archbishop, “there being no cause that prevents it,” was weaker than a declaration of innocence or that “no irregularities were proven.” The absence of transparency weakens the moral authority of the decision.
There is a risk to the credibility of the Church. The Basilica is one of the most important Marian shrines in the world. The opacity fueled by Aguiar Retes has fed speculation and rumors, some of them serious and unverified in serious sources, but present in the sensationalism of likes and subscriptions on social media. This contrasts with the transparency standards that the Church has promoted in recent years at the universal level.
There are also consequences in the canonical and civil dimensions. While internal processes may have confidentiality reservations, the management of the Church’s temporal goods must be prudent, transparent, and ordered to the mission in accordance with canons 1254-1310 of the Code of Canon Law. In the legal sphere, religious associations have obligations of accountability to civil authorities.
Since the report is not public, it is not possible to answer with certainty essential and necessary questions. Was Deloitte’s opinion clean, qualified, adverse, or with disclaimers? Were material weaknesses in internal controls, irregularities in contracts, or in the handling of resources identified? What recommendations were issued and what is their degree of implementation? Are there findings that justify additional supervisory measures or structural reforms in the governance of the sanctuary?
Although the Deloitte audit was a positive step in the intention to bring order and to affirm or dismiss the chapter’s accusations, incorporating an international firm of prestige to provide technical rigor and impartiality to the canonical investigation should have reinforced a positive aspect in the government of Carlos Aguiar, but it has not. The failure to publish its results has turned the audit into a new element of the crisis instead of a mechanism for resolution. As long as the results remain reserved, the crisis of the Basilica of Guadalupe can hardly be considered overcome, regardless of the administrative reinstatement of the rector or the statement that, in the coming days, there will already be the appointment of a new rector with the approval of the Mexican Episcopal Conference.
If summaries, opinions, or official statements are published in the future, it will be possible to carry out a more technical and precise analysis. But now, the main public finding is the absence of transparency surrounding an audit that, paradoxically, was requested precisely to generate clarity, certainty, and, above all, as the Gospel affirms, because there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed; nor hidden, that will not come to light. (Lk 8:17)