Credit where credit is due / The statement read by the Archbishop of Mexico, Carlos Aguiar Retes, on the occasion of the new rector’s installation, presents a series of changes as a mere administrative and pastoral update, inspired by the reforms Pope Francis implemented in the Papal Basilicas of Rome. At first glance, the language appears irreproachable: efficiency, order, renewal, and the strengthening of the pastoral mission.
Yet no statement can be interpreted apart from its context. This one follows accusations by several canons regarding irregularities in the administration of the Basilica, a canonical investigation, and an audit whose results remain undisclosed, as well as the controversial reinstatement and subsequent removal of the then-rector, Efraín Hernández Díaz.
Therefore, the true scope of this document lies not only in what it says, but in the model of governance it announces for the world’s principal Marian shrine.
Let us examine the most important points of the statement in an effort to clarify its true intention, which is far from a sincere spiritual or faith-based motivation.
1.- The real purpose of the “update” of the Basilica
“With the responsibility I hold as Primate Archbishop of Mexico and Custodian of the Sacred Image, I inform you that we have begun a stage of updating and improving the administrative, operational, and pastoral processes at the Basilica of Guadalupe.
To this end, we will take as reference the updates promoted by Pope Francis for the Papal Basilicas of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome and St. Peter’s in the Vatican, through which the pastoral mission of the basilicas was strengthened, institutional responsibilities were clarified, and an organization better suited to the needs of pilgrims was fostered.
As in the Papal Basilicas, this renewal will help distinguish the pastoral mission from administrative operations, thereby consolidating, in accordance with new civil and ecclesial norms, an increasingly efficient and orderly institution.”
At first glance, the statement presents these reforms as a simple administrative and pastoral update. However, behind this seemingly technical language lies a far deeper transformation of the Basilica’s governance.
The reforms promoted by Pope Francis for the Papal Basilicas of Rome did not arise from a mere reorganization. They were born in response to the administrative and financial disorder that had been detected in some of them over the years. On that basis, their governance structure was profoundly altered.
What is significant is that these reforms were carried out without consulting the chapters, exactly the same way Cardinal Aguiar now intends to proceed at the Basilica of Guadalupe.
The result was the weakening of the chapters. The canons were removed from economic and governance decisions, largely reduced to liturgical and ceremonial functions. They lost the effective participation they had historically held in the administration of the basilicas.
At the same time, governing authority was concentrated in the figure of the archpriest, appointed directly by the Pope. Although each of the basilicas applied the reforms with different nuances, the outcome was essentially the same: a strong centralization of administrative and economic decisions.
Viewed from this perspective, Archbishop Aguiar’s reference to the reforms of the Papal Basilicas clearly suggests the direction he appears to intend for the Basilica of Guadalupe: to weaken the Chapter as a governing body and to concentrate greater control over the administration and finances of the shrine.
The strategy is particularly astute from a political and ecclesial standpoint. By presenting these measures as a simple application of the model established by Pope Francis, any objection can easily be interpreted as opposition to decisions already made by the Pontiff himself.
In this way, the reference to the Roman reforms serves not only as a legal precedent but also as a powerful argument for legitimacy against any criticism.
2.- The separation between the pastoral and the administrative
“As in the Papal Basilicas, this renewal will help distinguish the pastoral mission from administrative operations, thereby consolidating, in accordance with new civil and ecclesial norms, an increasingly efficient and orderly institution.”
At first glance, the proposal seems impeccable. Who could oppose clearly distinguishing the pastoral mission from administration? The approach even recalls the evangelical principle of “rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” The argument appears noble, reasonable, and even difficult to question.
However, when one considers the scope these reforms had in the Papal Basilicas of Rome, the picture changes significantly.
In practice, that separation did not merely mean a better distribution of functions. Its consequence was to remove the chapters from economic and administrative decisions, limiting their participation to the strictly pastoral and liturgical sphere. Effective governance and control of administration were concentrated in other instances.
It is precisely this model that Archbishop Aguiar now presents as a reference for the Basilica of Guadalupe.
Under the argument of making administration more efficient and distinguishing competencies, what is actually taking shape is a new governance structure in which the Chapter would lose its capacity to intervene in the economic and administrative decisions of the shrine. In this way, a true institutional counterbalance would cease to exist, and the practical obligation to inform or reach consensus with the Chapter on decisions related to the Basilica’s administration would disappear.
In this context, the appeal to administrative efficiency ceases to be a mere organizational criterion and acquires a much deeper dimension: the concentration of governance and economic control of the Basilica in fewer and fewer hands, reproducing the scheme implemented in the Papal Basilicas under Pope Francis’s reform. Thus, the apparent separation between the pastoral and the administrative becomes the legal instrument that makes this concentration of power possible.
3.- The “reviews” now used to justify the changes
“Furthermore, since last year, I ordered various administrative and operational reviews at the Basilica, which were reported to the Mexican Episcopal Conference, the Apostolic Nunciature, and the Holy See. These reviews, customary in the life of any institution, have made it possible to identify opportunities to strengthen evangelizing action, internal organization, and the daily care provided to the millions of pilgrims.”
At this point, the statement claims that, since last year, the archbishop ordered various administrative and operational reviews of the Basilica, presenting them as something customary in the life of any institution and as the basis for the reforms now being announced.
However, it is important to distinguish two completely different processes.
On the one hand, following the accusations brought by the canons regarding alleged irregularities in the management of the then-rector, Canon Efraín Hernández Díaz, Archbishop Aguiar ordered a canonical investigation. That investigation concluded months ago, but to date its results have never been shared with the Chapter, despite the Chapter’s right to know them, having been the one who filed the complaints and being the governing body of the Basilica itself.
Various leaks from that investigation revealed that the then-rector did not emerge unscathed. Nevertheless, when in May Archbishop Aguiar decided to reinstate Efraín Hernández in the position, he assured the Chapter that the investigation had found no irregularities—an assertion that contrasts with the information that later came to light.
On the other hand, the decision to conduct the administrative audit cannot be attributed to Aguiar Retes either. It did not originate from his own initiative but was promoted by the Mexican Episcopal Conference, which entrusted the work to the international firm Deloitte. To this day, the results of that audit have also not been delivered to the Chapter. Everything indicates that the reason is that they would reveal various irregularities whose disclosure would be uncomfortable.
The statement’s claim that these reviews are “customary in the life of any institution” is also inaccurate. If they had truly been part of ordinary practice, they would have been carried out periodically during the nearly eight years of Carlos Aguiar’s governance. That did not happen. These reviews were not a customary practice but a measure to which he was compelled by circumstances and the gravity of the accusations presented.
Paradoxically, these same investigations and audits, which did not arise from his own initiative and whose results remain undisclosed, are now being used as the main argument to justify a profound restructuring of the governance and administration of the Basilica of Guadalupe.
4.- The lie of the consultations that were never conducted
“During these months I have sought to listen attentively to various people who, from different areas of responsibility and service, have shared their experiences, concerns, and proposals. I thank all those who, with a spirit of communion and love for the Most Holy Virgin of Guadalupe, have contributed to this exercise of ecclesial discernment.”
If there is one word that characterized Pope Francis’s pontificate, it was synodality. Listening, dialoguing, discerning. Aguiar has made that language his own and repeats it constantly. Yet reality is far removed from that rhetoric.
Archbishop Aguiar speaks of consultations he never conducts. At least the priests of the Archdiocese of Mexico have never been consulted on the major pastoral or governance decisions he has made over nearly eight years. The great “champion” of synodality, in practice, listens to no one. He is incapable of entering into genuine dialogue. Always, with his refined manners and mellifluous voice, he ends up imposing his will.
He does not tolerate criticism, even when it is respectful and constructive. Whoever thinks differently is ignored, marginalized, and, on more than a few occasions, ends up suffering reprisals. When arguments are exhausted and someone insists on questioning a decision, he usually ends the discussion with a phrase that perfectly summarizes his way of exercising authority: “I am the archbishop.”
Aguiar now claims that he listened to numerous people, that there was ecclesial discernment, and that he received proposals from various areas of responsibility. The inevitable question is: whom did he listen to? Because he certainly did not listen to the Chapter of Guadalupe, which knew the situation of the Basilica firsthand. Nor did he listen to a large part of his presbyterate, which for years has awaited being taken into account in decisions affecting the life of the archdiocese.
He frequently claims to have consulted the Pope, the Mexican Episcopal Conference, the Apostolic Nunciature, or his closest collaborators. And many believe him. But experience shows otherwise: decisions are already made in advance, and the supposed consultations end up being a device to cloak them with a legitimacy that in reality never arose from a genuine process of dialogue.
For this reason, this paragraph of the statement does not describe an authentic exercise of ecclesial discernment. It is, rather, an attempt to present as the fruit of a broad consultation decisions that, according to the experience of those who have lived with his style of governance, were made unilaterally long before anyone could offer an opinion on them.
5.- The intimidating call for unity
The archbishop’s statement concludes with a call for unity:
“I invite everyone to live this moment in a spirit of communion and unity, avoiding interpretations that could sow division, and to place this path under the protection of Saint Mary of Guadalupe.”
These words are striking because they seem directed precisely at those who have expressed legitimate concerns about the direction the Basilica of Guadalupe and the Archdiocese of Mexico are taking.
Archbishop Aguiar calls for communion and unity because he knows the climate that exists within the archdiocese. He knows that the presbyterate does not share his style of governance and anxiously awaits and prays for the moment of his replacement. He also knows that, since the Basilica scandal, his decisions are under intense scrutiny and that his moral authority and credibility have been shattered.
The problem is not criticism. The problem is believing that every questioning constitutes division. In the Church, communion does not consist of remaining silent in the face of questionable decisions or of applauding authority unconditionally. Communion is built on truth, transparency, and trust. It is impossible to be in communion with someone who has destroyed and dismantled the Archdiocese of Mexico.
That is why it is difficult to accept that unity is now invoked when precisely the decisions taken have caused deep unease among priests, canons, and numerous faithful. Division does not arise from those who point out what they consider abuses, manipulations, or mistaken decisions. Division arises when authority stops listening, concentrates power, and demands unconditional allegiance.
Whoever governs the Church must ask whether the origin of the fracture lies in those who raise their voices or in the decisions that have led to the loss of trust among those who make up the Archdiocese.
Therefore, the appeal to communion cannot become a device to disqualify all criticism or to intimidate. True communion requires truth, accountability, and openness to dialogue. Without those elements, the call for unity risks being perceived simply as an invitation to silence or, worse still, to complicity.
Conclusion
More than a simple administrative reform, the statement announces a profound change in the governance structure of the Basilica of Guadalupe. Under the reference to the reforms promoted by Pope Francis for the Papal Basilicas—which, far from strengthening collegiality, ended up weakening the chapters and concentrating administrative and economic decisions—a similar model is taking shape for Guadalupe.
If that reading is correct, the real issue is no longer the modernization of processes, but Archbishop Aguiar’s revenge against the Chapter that, responsibly and courageously, denounced the abuses of the previous rector; with this decision, the aim is to weaken the Chapter as a governing body and to concentrate control over the administration and resources of the shrine. That is the underlying question the statement leaves open and that its promoters should answer clearly.
Now, it appears that Aguiar forgets that a reform of this magnitude cannot be carried out alone and in an authoritarian manner, as he usually governs; it requires the approval of the Holy See and the Mexican Episcopal Conference, since Guadalupe is not a diocesan shrine but a national one, and the reform of the statutes requires the approval of Pope Leo XIV, whom Aguiar has consistently ignored, instead sheltering himself under the authority of Pope Francis, who died more than a year ago and is therefore no longer the Pope. Does Aguiar know this?