At the  26th International Mariological Marian Congress, held at the Pontifical Antonianum University in Rome, Mexican philosopher and theologian  Rodrigo Guerra López  presented  “Holy Mary of Guadalupe and the Evangelization of America in the Contemporary Context.” His address emphasized the universal relevance of the Tepeyac event and the need to recover the Marian style in the Church’s evangelizing mission.

Guerra began with a critique of rationalist positions that reduce the Guadalupe event to a 16th-century cultural product. In response, he proposed understanding it as an  “event”  that reshaped reality and opened a new horizon for both Indigenous and Spanish people, generating the mestizo synthesis that gave rise to a new people in the Americas.

The academic highlighted five dimensions of Guadalupe’s message that remain relevant today:

• A Christocentric Mariology, where Mary always leads to Christ.

• Inculturated evangelization assumes and transforms without destroying cultures.

• The preferential option for the little ones, symbolized in the choice of Saint Juan Diego.

• The dignity of women in the ecclesial mission, showing the “Marian principle” as a transformative force.

• Synodality and communion, expressed in the dialogue between the humble layman and Bishop Zumárraga.

In line with the teachings of Pope Francis, Guerra recalled that there is a  “Marian style of evangelization,” marked by tenderness, closeness, and the ability to build community. This style, he said, is key to facing the challenges of an America torn apart by polarization, violence, and inequality.

The speaker concluded that  Guadalupe is not an exclusively Mexican or Latin American heritage, but rather a universal message  destined for all peoples. In her, the Church finds a method to evangelize without destroying, to heal wounds, and to renew the hope of fraternity.

“The miracle of conversion and reconciliation that began in 1531 can be repeated today throughout the continent and beyond,” Guerra affirmed. “With Mary, polarization and violence do not have the last word: God’s plan is for us to live as brothers and sisters.”

Full text of the conference:

Saint Mary of Guadalupe and the evangelization of America in the contemporary context

Rodrigo Guerra López *

XXVI International Mariological Marian Congress

Pontifical Antonianum University

Rome, Italy

September 4, 2025

Introduction

The literature on the Guadalupe event is immense. Both historical research and theological reflection have been abundant and increased in the wake of the canonization process of Saint Juan Diego. We all gratefully recall the works of Father José Luis Guerrero, Eduardo Chávez, Fidel González, Miguel León Portilla, and many others, who undoubtedly contributed and continue to contribute not only to clarifying the controversial issue of the historicity of Saint Juan Diego but also to recognizing that what happened in December 1531 on Tepeyac Hill was a true “event.” [1]

Our contribution, in this context, cannot be more than modest. Below, we present a brief reflection on some of the elements we consider appropriate to recover from the Guadalupe message for the renewal of the evangelizing activity of the Church in the American continent. We abandon any claim to exhaustiveness and limit ourselves to a brief overview of some essential themes. We cannot here delve into the well-known account of the apparitions of the Virgin at Tepeyac—as it appears in the  Nican Mopohua—  nor into the historical and cultural premises surrounding what happened at Tepeyac in December 1531. We refer to the works of the aforementioned authors, and especially to Pedro Alarcón Méndez’s book,  El amor de Jesús vivo en la Virgen de Guadalupe . [2]

1. Mary of Guadalupe: an event that transcends historical-critical rationalism

The various rationalisms that have inhabited the social sciences, and in particular, history as a science, over the last two hundred years, quickly generated the conviction in some circles that everything is  contextual , everything is  factual , everything is “historically situated.” The so-called “historicisms” were not the only ones to embrace “the historical” as a fundamental horizon for existence. We can see that this occurred in various schools and tendencies, even when they were not directly classified as “historicist.” Without entering into these passionate discussions, suffice it to mention that various modalities of historical-critical rationalism have consistently raised objections not only to the historicity of Saint Juan Diego, but also to the very fact of the apparitions of Saint Mary of Guadalupe at Tepeyac and to the meaning of their message.

From a rationalist perspective, Guadalupe is a mere “fact,” a factuality, a  symbolic and cultural product , perfectly  derivable  from its context and the historical process in which it is inserted. From this perspective, it will not be difficult to hear, for example, that the entire popular religiosity and mysticism of Guadalupe is very interesting as a tradition, as folklore, or even as a binding identity, but that the nature of the image and the dialogue maintained by the Virgin Mary with Saint Juan Diego is an artificial construction, perhaps carried out with good intentions, perhaps with a “colonizing-ideological” zeal, and that ultimately reflects the mentality of the Spanish crown in trying to bring the inhabitants of the New World closer to the Catholic faith through power.

I immediately recall the arguments that were aired in this regard in the past by some famous anti-apparitionists such as Monsignor Guillermo Shulenburg, Father Carlos Warnholtz, Father Stafford Poole or in more recent years some study by Adriana Narvaez or the book by Gisela von Wobeser. [3]

Rationalism, however, in its various forms and modalities, sooner or later must confront reality. And reality has caused, in various authors and schools of contemporary thought, even in theology, a rift through which it is possible to rearticulate a critical reflection on rationalism itself. This rift has various names and elements; however, for the purposes of this exposition, we can identify it with the philosophical and theological emergence of the term “event.”

Indeed, the German word “ Ereignis ”, the French “ événement ”, or the English “ event ”, have burst onto the scene with great force through the reflections of Martin Heidegger, Alain Badiou, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida, Jean-Luc Marion, or Claude Romano. [4]  In the theological field, this same category has been used in a relevant way by authors such as: Ignace de la Potterie SJ, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger, Luigi Giussani or Christoph Teobald. [5]

What does “event” mean? It is not simply something that  occurs , but something that interrupts what is tendentially expected. Unlike a mere “fact,” an event cannot be fully explained by its preconditions. It has a dimension of radical novelty and therefore, in a certain sense, marks a rupture in the formation of the “world” ( Welt ). The event reconfigures reality, language, affect, or thought. In other words, there is a “world” before the event, and another after. The event is not deduced, it is not planned. It has an  uncontrollable ,  gratuitous ,  open character . And for many authors—such as Badiou or Derrida—the event challenges, summons, or demands a  position on my freedom,  that is, an  ethical response .

Ratzinger, Giussani and De la Potterie, as theologians, will bring the word “event” closer primarily to the irruption of the irreducible presence of God in History, in other words, to the heart of the notion of “grace” and of the Incarnation. In this way, the  Christian event  will refer to a  gratuitous ,  derivative and irreducible presence , which introduces a novelty that changes life forever. [6]

From this perspective, the appearance of Mary of Guadalupe, the imprinting of her image, and the dialogue with Saint Juan Diego are “events.” In Mary of Guadalupe, we find a presence that cannot be fully explained, for example, by the pictorial art of the 16th century, by the Spanish theology of the time, or by the pastoral ministry of the brave friars who arrived in the Americas. Her presence and message are a phenomenon that transcends, that surpasses, what we might expect from the cultural products of the period.

Furthermore, the Virgin of Guadalupe not only introduced the “good news,” the radical novelty, and the reconfiguration of the consciousness of the indigenous people. Mary at Tepeyac also introduced the Spanish conquistadors to a new logic, distinct from that encouraged by the crown with its decisions and its mentality. Just consider how, in the event of Tepeyac, the inalienable dignity of the indigenous people, their culture, and their religiosity is recognized, without condemnation, without destruction. Something unthinkable in 16th-century Spain! And what is even more impressive: through Guadalupe, the indigenous people are proclaimed as “another equal” to the Spaniard. “Another equal” in their dignity and in their need to find answers to the deepest aspirations of the heart in the Gospel.

Indeed, Mary succeeds in purifying and elevating indigenous and Spanish religiosity, integrating them into a greater reality that is offered as a gift. The truth of Tepeyac does not overwhelm, dominate, or destroy. Rather, it establishes a community of faith and interpretation of life and reality that allows for the gradual blending and inculturation of the gospel in a new cultural context. The indigenous consciousness, devastated and destroyed after the military, psychological, and cultural collapse that occurred in 1521, is gradually restored. And this restoration does not leave the Spanish untouched. They, too, slowly begin to question themselves and participate in the formation of a new synthesis. What emerges is not a mere “extension” of Spain into the “New World.” Nor is it a continuation of the process maintained by the various pre-Hispanic cultures. What begins in 1531 is the emergence of a new people.

The mestizo and baroque synthesis, facilitated by the Tepeyac event, generates a reconfiguration of the “world.” This “reconfiguration”:

“It does not happen through concealment as marginalization of the indigenous world, nor does it happen through substitution as superimposition of new elements that occupy the void of previous conceptions, nor does it happen through indigenous assimilation to the European way of being and thinking.” [7]

The process is that of the  inculturation of the Gospel , that is, the unrestricted embrace of the entire human condition, except for sin. This embrace is not extrinsic but is built through the subtle synergy between grace and nature, at the moment of conversion. A moment that lasts a lifetime. Thus, inculturating the Gospel  is not a mere syncretism , but the  constant purification  of our way of being, based on the life that God himself constantly shares with us through his Son. Conversion, understood in this way, generates the experience of a new freedom that is expressed and projected in the particular ” ethos ” we call Latin America today.

2. Brief notes on the new American and ecclesial scenario

It is evident that the reconfiguration of the world brought about by Tepeyac has been slow and has not yet reached its full potential. Using indigenous language, we find ourselves in ” Nepantla ,” that is, halfway between disfigurement and reconfiguration. [8]

The current Latin American and continental landscape lends itself to no other diagnosis. On the one hand, in all the American nations there are emblematic moments in the struggle for freedom, justice, and sovereignty. The history of the American continent is often narrated precisely through these exploits. With great pride, Argentines and North Americans, Colombians and Mexicans, when recounting their history, will describe the slow, painful process of development, justice, and the pursuit of freedom achieved to date. However, this entire journey is also marked by errors, misery, setbacks, fractures, and violence.

Without going into the details of a political analysis, it is not difficult to see that in the Americas we find ourselves in a particularly critical moment. Postmodern culture, filled with suspicion, irrationalism, and distrust of grand universalizing narratives, permeates and nourishes the crisis of liberal democracy and the rise of ideological and partisan polarization. New technologies in all spheres simultaneously lead to the emergence of new processes of marginalization, poverty, and exclusion for vast segments of the population. Caring for our common home is an ethical, and even Christian, discourse that fails to generate sufficient consensus to develop a global strategy that will make it viable for future generations. New migration dynamics strain all countries and generate sovereignist and authoritarian tendencies, which hinder new regional cooperation and integration that is more humane and supportive. Finally, organized crime has managed to build global transit routes that make its activities and violence a vastly expanded phenomenon. Societies are torn apart, and many of them are exhausted after a long process of unfulfilled promises, disenchantment with ideologies, and insecurity on the streets.

Given these premises, talking about social fracture is relatively easy. Violence, even extreme, is a readily available resource; that is, it is within the reach of many individuals, families, and communities. Solutions based on dialogue, the search for consensus, and the reconstruction of the social fabric sound naive, utopian, or purely formal. It is increasingly common to hear that “there is no solution,” “that there is no way forward,” “that the worst is yet to come.” Furthermore, a certain resignation seems to reign when it is discovered that power is held by a certain authoritarian leader.

Furthermore, within the Church itself, cooperation, fraternity, and the experience of a more intense synodality are still far from ideal. Various ecclesial sectors polarize, point fingers at each other, and even question the authority of the Successor of Peter and his Magisterium, especially when they disagree with the ideas of their own faction.

The Church, for example through the Latin American Episcopal Council (CELAM), is able to detect these and other important “signs of the times” of our time. The pastoral challenge in this context is enormous. How can the Church respond to scenarios of multiple social fractures when pastoral coordination at the continental level is still a dream? How should the Church act in this context, when the context itself is not foreign to it? Is the necessary synodal and missionary reform of the Church fully aware of the characteristics of the emerging new culture and prepared to address and understand them?

3. Pope Francis’ proposal: “a Marian style in the evangelizing activity of the Church”

These and other questions are not easy to answer quickly and briefly. However, they find some general insight in the Apostolic Exhortation  Evangelii Gaudium.  Pope Francis, with great prophetic power, succeeded in renewing the power of the Gospel not through a project or pastoral program, but by helping us rediscover the centrality of the Person of Jesus and a set of fundamental attitudes that help us live in his way. In this comprehensive document, so full of love for the Church and concrete pastoral and missionary wisdom, Francis noted:

“There is a Marian style in the evangelizing activity of the Church. Because every time we look at Mary, we believe again in the revolutionary nature of tenderness and affection. In her, we see that humility and tenderness are not virtues of the weak but of the strong, who do not need to mistreat others to feel important. Looking at her, we discover that the same woman who praised God because he “has put down the mighty from their thrones” and “sent the rich away empty-handed” ( Luke  1:52, 53) is the one who brings the warmth of home to our search for justice. She is also the one who carefully “regards all things, pondering them in her heart” ( Luke  2:19). Mary knows how to recognize the traces of the Spirit of God in great events and also in those that seem imperceptible. She contemplates the mystery of God in the world, in history, and in the daily life of each and every person. She is the prayerful and hardworking woman of Nazareth, and she is also our Lady of promptness, She goes out from her village to help others “without delay” ( Lk  1:39). This dynamic of justice and tenderness, of contemplating and walking towards others, is what makes her an ecclesial model for evangelization.” [9]

Indeed, there is a “Marian style of the Church’s evangelizing activity,” which, when consciously understood, helps us avoid the easy temptation of believing that it is with our own ideas or whims that we will reform the Church to keep pace with the times and respond faithfully to the Gospel.

This “Marian style” is not mere pastoral rhetoric, nor is it an ethical admiration of the Virgin’s virtues, and even less is it a mere “pious sentiment.” In our opinion, the “Marian style” of which Pope Francis speaks consists in taking seriously Chapter VIII of the Dogmatic Constitution  Lumen Gentium.

We can say the same thing from another perspective: it’s no secret that after the Second Vatican Council, the number of pilgrimages to Marian shrines around the world has increased, a very good thing, and one that speaks to the mysterious but real action of the Spirit in the heart of the Holy People of God. However, at the same time, Mariological reflection has not enjoyed the same momentum. The role of Mary in Christology, in theological anthropology, in sacramental theology, in the theology of the interior life, in missiology, in the Social Doctrine of the Church, and in so many other areas, seems to me to be sometimes diminished.

We can say something else: in times of profound ecclesial reform, such as the ones we are experiencing, it is striking that, for example, in the final document of the Synod of Synodality, entitled “For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, and Mission,” the word “Mary” is used eleven times, five of which refer to “Mary Magdalene.” The six mentions of the Virgin Mary are rather brief allusions. The only paragraph that deals thematically with Mary is number 29, and is eight lines long:

“In the Virgin Mary, Mother of Christ, of the Church and of humanity, we see the features of a synodal, missionary and merciful Church shine forth in full light. She is, in fact, the figure of the Church that listens, prays, meditates, dialogues, accompanies, discerns, decides and acts. From her we learn the art of listening, attentiveness to God’s will, obedience to his word, the capacity to understand the needs of the poor, the courage to set out on a journey, the love that helps, the song of praise and exultation in the Spirit. Therefore, as Saint Paul VI affirmed, “the Church’s activity in the world is, as it were, an extension of Mary’s solicitude” (MC 28).” [10]

The text is undoubtedly important. It recognizes Mary as a figure of the Church and as a pedagogical path. However, its brevity is striking. For example, in the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution  on the Church  , an entire chapter is explicitly and thematically dedicated to Mary, and she is presented as a “type,” that is, as a model of the Church. Mary is the Church as it  should  be.

Furthermore, Pope Francis has carried out a very broad Mariological reflection throughout his Magisterium. This reflection, full of tenderness and devotion to the Virgin, is strongly marked by an ecclesiological, pastoral, and missionary concern, as Alexandre Awi Mello has emphasized in an extensive and in-depth study. [11]  This book would suffice to document that Pope Francis not only sought to correct a certain Mariological deficit at the reflective level, but that he very explicitly saw in Mary the supreme example of evangelizing action and one of the fundamental factors of profound ecclesial renewal.

As long as the Virgin Mary tends to be used only as a pious resource to conclude some text or pastoral exhortation, as long as all her richness is contained within the horizon of the merely devotional, as long as her contribution to the economy of salvation and to the constitution of the mystery of the Church is not fully recognized, the Church herself is exposed to accepting other things as paradigmatic models, perhaps some brilliant idea or some innovative project, but not the project that God himself had from the beginning, when he introduced Mary as a close and singular collaborator in the mystery of redemption.

4. What can the Virgin of Guadalupe tell us about the challenges facing the American continent today?

Isn’t the Guadalupe message good news for Mexicans or Latin Americans only? Isn’t extending the Guadalupe theme to the entire American continent somewhat invasive? Why has the Church promoted it so strongly in its Magisterium? Why is its feast celebrated in St. Peter’s Basilica every year with a Eucharist presided over by the Pope, if its value and importance are rather local? Can the Guadalupe event be significant in the face of the new continental and global context?

These and other similar questions are important. To the extent that we ask them radically, we will be able to better understand the eventual  universal dimension  of the Tepeyac event. Without being able to address these questions analytically at this time, we dare to say that the Guadalupe message can help us in a special way to live a healthy ” sentere cum Ecclesiae ” in the face of the challenges facing society and the Church on the American continent, in the new global context. In other words, the Guadalupe message, while embedded in a history and a people, its profound meaning is intended for all—all, without exception.

On the one hand, the  Nican Mopohua  seems to already hint at it when we read:

“Know, be certain, my son, the smallest, that I am the perfect ever-Virgin Holy Mary, Mother of the most true God through Whom one lives (…) I desire that my sacred little house be built here. (…) because I am truly your compassionate mother; yours and of  all men who are in one on this earth . And  of the other races of men,  my lovers, those who call upon me, those who seek me, those who trust in me.” [12]

The Virgin of Guadalupe speaks, therefore, of all people in every nation. However, in the papal Magisterium we also find some valuable “clues” in this direction:

• St. John Paul II says in  Ecclesia in America:

“The apparition of Mary to the Indian Juan Diego on the hill of Tepeyac in 1531 had a decisive impact on evangelization. This influence went  beyond the confines of the Mexican nation, reaching the entire continent . (…) Over time, the awareness of the role played by the Virgin in the evangelization of the continent has grown ever more acute among Pastors and faithful. In the prayer composed for the Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Americas, Mary Most Holy of Guadalupe is invoked as “Patroness  of all America  and Star of the first and of the new evangelization.” In this regard, I joyfully welcome the proposal of the Synod Fathers that the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mother and Evangelizer of the Americas, be celebrated throughout the continent on December 12.” [13]

• On May 11, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI blesses a statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe in the Vatican Gardens. During the prayer, he says:

“Saint Mary, who under the title
of Our Lady of Guadalupe
are invoked as Mother
by the men and women
of the Mexican people and of Latin America ,
encouraged by the love you inspire in us,
we once again place
our lives in your maternal hands.

You, who are present
in these Vatican gardens,
reign in the hearts of all the mothers of the world and in our hearts . With great hope, we turn to you and trust in you. 
 

• Pope Francis, in the “introduction” to Rocco Buttiglione’s book, “ Paths to a Theology of People and Culture ,” notes:

“The Guadalupe event inaugurates a process that will later spread through various Marian advocations, from the Rio Grande to Patagonia. Latin America will be evangelized by men and women of faith who, under the protection of the Virgin, risk and try, advance and learn. (…) In the current context, with forms and modalities perhaps never before seen, this dynamic is destined to be lived  not only in Latin America but throughout the world .” [14]

• On March 25, 2022, Pope Francis consecrated Russia and Ukraine to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. In the consecration prayer, the Holy Father says:

“In the misery of sin, in our weariness and weakness, in the mystery of the iniquity of evil and war, you, Holy Mother, remind us that God does not abandon us, but continues to look upon us with love, eager to forgive us and raise us up again. It is He who has given you to us and placed in your Immaculate Heart a refuge for the Church and for humanity. By his divine goodness, you are with us, and even in the most adverse vicissitudes of history, you guide us with tenderness. Therefore, we have recourse to you, we knock at the door of your Heart, we, your beloved children, whom you never tire of visiting and inviting to conversion. In this dark hour, come to our aid and comfort. Repeat  to each of us : “Am I not here, I who am your Mother?”

• Pope Francis, at Mass for the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe on December 12, 2022, welcomes the “Intercontinental Guadalupe Novena.” The expression “intercontinental” invites us to go beyond the American borders to discover the aforementioned universal dimension of the Tepeyac event:

“Today, December 12, the Intercontinental Guadalupana Novena begins on the American continent, a journey that prepares for the celebration of the Fifth Centenary of the Guadalupana Event in 2031. I urge  all members of the Church that is on pilgrimage in America , pastors and faithful, to participate in this celebratory journey.” [15]

These “clues” prompt us to think. Therefore, by looking at the image, listening to the message, and learning from the pedagogical path that Saint Mary of Guadalupe uses to form and transform Saint Juan Diego, we can note at least five important things that go far beyond merely “regional or subregional” circumstances.

In the Guadalupe event we can recognize:

• A Christocentric Mariology: First, the message of the Virgin of Guadalupe to Saint Juan Diego clearly announces the Son of God as the sole redeemer of humanity. She does not tacitly or explicitly propose herself as the center, but rather as the path to her Son. She clearly presents herself as the “Mother of the true God through Whom we live.” The event at Tepeyac evokes, then, the affirmation made by the Council of Ephesus that through Mary’s obedience we have received the gift of Jesus Christ, one with the Father in divinity and one with us in humanity, since the Incarnation. At Tepeyac, she is  Deipara,  she carries God. She is  Theotokos , Mother of God. She is the Virgin of Advent who is shown pregnant. She unites herself with the gift of her Son on the Cross, in turn, constantly giving us her Son. The testament of Jesus Christ on the cross in which Mary welcomes St. John and St. John welcomes Mary (cf. Jn 19:26-27), is beautifully reiterated in the  Nican Mopohua:

“Am I not here, I who am your Mother?

Are you not under my shadow and shelter?

Am I not the source of your joy?

Are you not in the hollow of my garment, in the cross of my arms?

“Do you need anything else?” [16]

In this way, Mary also affirmed herself in 1531 as our Mother, that is, Mother of the Church.

• Inculturated evangelization: The image and message of Tepeyac embrace, without destroying, the languages, symbols, and mentality of pre-Hispanic communities. In this way, Guadalupe reminds us of the logic of the incarnation, which is the heart of understanding  inculturated evangelization . “Inculturated evangelization” refers not only to forms of inculturation carried out in the past but also to the forms of inculturation that must be carried out in the present and in the future. In this way, the Virgin of Guadalupe teaches us to appreciate our own culture, our own history, and also all that is true, good, and beautiful in the new society we are experiencing. The Gospel is also called to be incarnated in new cultures, in new youth environments, in new forms of relationships that arise from the emergence of cutting-edge technologies, always following the ancient principle of Saint Irenaeus: “What is not embraced is not redeemed.” In this light, the essence of the Guadalupe message is not to “spread Guadalupe devotion,” much less in “Mexican” or “Latin American” forms, but to rediscover with sympathy and interest the way Jesus Christ has been proclaimed through Mary in the culture and language of every people and nation in the world. This implies rediscovering the meaning of Marian devotions and their role in shaping not only personal spirituality but also the national and ecclesial identity of each people.
• Preferential option for the “least”: Saint Juan Diego is a faithful marginalized indigenous layman who is chosen by Mary to fulfill an extraordinary mission. God does not choose the strongest, the wisest, the richest, the most influential for the transformation of the world and history. He chooses the “least,” the poorest, the “least” of all. Indeed, the poorest evangelize us, because in their fragility, God’s theological action in their souls encounters less resistance. In other words, those who know they are poor, powerless, and incapable become docile and willing instruments, unlike those who believe they know, possess, or have power. The Kingdom is born from a mustard seed, not from a strategic project to change the world. Likewise, Saint Mary of Guadalupe shows us that evangelization becomes credible when we recognize the real presence of Jesus Christ in the poorest and most humiliated. It is in real closeness to the poor that evangelizing action best and most fully fulfills its purpose.
• Reclaiming the role and dignity of women in evangelization: The peoples of America are born from a feminine presence. Moreover, Mary is the mediator of all graces, because the fundamental Grace, which is Jesus Christ, is born from her. In Guadalupe, we can learn that it is true that there exists a “Marian principle,” that is, a charismatic principle that animates the Church and that mysteriously places women, every woman, in a role that we must discover more clearly today. The most important evangelizing force in the Church is women, without a doubt. Without mothers, wives, and consecrated women, the Church would be reduced to practically nothing. Furthermore, from the point of view of the Mystery of grace, the entire hierarchical dimension of the Church passes through the hands of Mary. [17]  Even priestly graces pass through the hands of the “full of grace,” who, by the way, is not a priest! This alone should force us to fully and profoundly recover the role of women in the lives of our communities.
• Simultaneous synodality and communion: Saint Juan Diego, a marginal lay faithful, but sent by Mary, brings the good news to the bishop. In other words, the lay person  evangelizes  the bishop! The bishop, rightfully, asks for a sign, and Saint Juan Diego  obeys . In this circularity, a proto-experience of  simultaneous synodality and communion  is established. Synodality is the dynamic dimension of communion. If communion is affirmed without synodality, we easily fall into the temptation of believing that we must always respond as a Church in a rigid and uniform manner. If synodality is affirmed without full communion, we fall into ecclesiastical populism. Communion and synodality are two faces of the same ecclesial mystery, where the grace of baptism is fundamental. We are brothers in the Brother. We all have the same dignity and we all must watch over the common good of the Church.

In the  Nican Mopohua,  moreover, there is a moment of exquisite synodality, difficult to imagine, in the ecclesial and ecclesiastical mentality of the 16th century. The moment I refer to can offer us a profound opportunity for meditation. The bishop, Fray Juan de Zumarraga, as we all know, does not immediately accept the Virgin’s request for the construction of a “sacred house.” He has doubts about the veracity of the herald, that is, of Saint Juan Diego. In fact, the bishop asks for a sign that would allow him to be more certain of what the indigenous man shares with him. Thus, at the key moment when Saint Juan Diego unveils his tilma before the bishop on December 12, 1531, the flowers fall, the image is imprinted, and something happens that is mentioned very briefly:

“The bishop, with tears, with sadness, begged him, asked for forgiveness [of Saint Juan Diego who was carrying the Virgin] for not having carried out his will [Mary’s will communicated by the saint to the bishop] immediately.” [18]

This small detail included in the  Nican Mopohua  is extraordinary and contains a profound ecclesial lesson for everyone, at all times.

5. In conclusion: Mary of Guadalupe is a “method”

Our Lady of Guadalupe is a method for relearning how to mature in the faith and for evangelizing with charity and without destruction. Our Lady, through the message of Tepeyac, does not threaten us with punishment, nor does she reproach us for our sin. With tenderness and patience, she accompanies us along the journey and reminds us that it is not in spite of our limitations that God acts. God does not act “in spite” of us, but through us. All He asks of us is to recognize those limitations with simplicity and offer ourselves completely as we are, to His merciful Love, in every Eucharist.

Maturity in faith is not achieved through a titanic effort of will or a program of human improvement. Maturity in faith arises when we grow in awareness that we are made by Another, who always sustains us and never abandons us. The Virgin Mary is the providential “mother” of this process. This is how she adopts and educates us. Let us confidently ask the Virgin of Guadalupe to learn to allow ourselves to be educated and corrected by her.

Likewise, inculturated evangelization, truly inspired by a preferential option for the poorest and most excluded, occurs when, through grace, we welcome others with patience and charity, without hurting, offending, or violating them.

It is in this way that the miracle of conversion and reconciliation that occurred beginning in 1531 can be repeated throughout the continent, in unprecedented ways, and also among other peoples and cultures. We must not lose hope. With Mary, this is not a utopian dream. The vocation of our families and our nations is not polarization, violence, and division. God’s plan is different: to live as brothers and sisters. The Church is the sacrament of unity, forgiveness, and reconciliation brought by Jesus Christ through Mary. With Mary, God’s plan for humanity can be realized within us and throughout the entire world. Leo XIV, not long ago, told us:

“In Christ, we can all overcome death (cf.  1 Cor  15:54). It is certainly God’s work, not ours. Yet Mary is that network of grace and freedom that inspires us to trust, to courage, to commitment to the life of a people.” [19]

May God grant that we always allow ourselves to be challenged by this.

*  Doctor of Philosophy from the  International Academy of Philosophy in the Principality of Liechtenstein;  founder of the  Center for Advanced Social Research  (CISAV); Professor at the  Pontifical Lateran University  and the  Pontifical Gregorian University ; Ordinary Member of the  Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences  and the  Pontifical Academy for Life ; Secretary of the  Pontifical Commission for Latin America . Email:  [email protected]

***

[1]  See: J.L. Guerrero, E. Chávez and F. González,  The Encounter of the Virgin of Guadalupe and Juan Diego . Editorial Porrúa, Mexico, 1999; E. Chávez,  The Truth of Guadalupe,  Ediciones Ruz, Mexico, 2008; F. González Fernández,  Guadalupe: Pulse and Heart of a People. The Guadalupe Event, Foundation of American Faith and Culture,  Ediciones Encuentro, Madrid, 2004; M. León-Portilla,  Tonantzin Guadalupe. Nahuatl Thought and Christian Message in the ‘Nican Mopohua’ , Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico 2000; P. Hernández Chávez CORC,  Towards a Manual of Guadalupe Themes,  Querétaro 2016.

[2]  P. Alarcón Méndez,  The Love of Jesus Alive in the Virgin of Guadalupe,  Palibrio, Bloomington 2013.

[3]  J. Sicilia, “The Miracle of Guadalupe. Interview with Guillermo Schulenburg”, in  Ixtus  Espíritu y Cultura , year 3, n. 15, 1995, pp 28-35; S. Poole,  Our Lady of Guadalupe. The Origins and Sources of a Mexican National Symbol , 1531-1797, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson & London 1995; A. Narvaez Lora, “Guadalupe, baroque culture and Creole identity”, in  History and Graphics , UIA, no. 35, 2010, pp 129-160; G. von Wobeser , Origins of the cult of Our Lady of Guadalupe 1521-1688,  UNAM-FCE ,  Mexico 2020 .

[4]  M. Heidegger,  Contributions to Philosophy: On the Event , Biblos Editorial, Buenos Aires, 2012; A. Badiou,  Being and the Event , Manantial Editions, Buenos Aires, 1999; G. Deleuze,  Logic of Sense , Paidós Ibérica, Barcelona, ​​2005; J. Derrida,  Politics of Friendship,  Trotta, Madrid 1998; J.-L. Marion,  Being Given: Essay on a Phenomenology of Gift , Síntesis Editorial, Madrid, 2008; C. Romano,  The Possible and the Event: Introduction to the Hermeneutics of Events , Alberto Hurtado University Editions, Santiago de Chile, 2008.

[5]  I. De la Potterie SJ,  The Truth in Saint John , Sígueme Editions, Salamanca 1979; HU von Balthasar,  Theodramatics I: The Unfolding of the Drama , Encuentro, Madrid 1992; J. Ratzinger,  Introduction to Christianity , Sígueme Salamanca 2001; Benedict XVI, Encyclical  Deus Caritas Est,  n. 1; L. Giussani,  The Religious Sense , Encuentro, Madrid 2001; C. Theobald,  Christianity as Style. A Way of Doing Theology in Postmodernity , Sal Terrae, Santander 2009.

[6]  Cf. H. De Lubac SJ,  The Mystery of the Supernatural , Encuentro, Madrid 1992; I. De la Potterie SJ, “Truth as an Event,” in:  International Review 30Days in the Church and the World,  Year VII, No. 65, 1993; J. Ratzinger, “Presentation” to L. Giussani,  A Coming of Life, as a Story,  Il Sabato, Milan 1993; Benedict XVI,  Deus caritas est,  n. 1.

[7]  P. Alarcón Méndez,  The Love of Jesus Alive in the Virgin of Guadalupe,  Palibrio, Bloomington 2013, p. 21.

[8]  Cf. Ibidem, p. 23.

[9]  Francis,  Evangelii gaudium , no. 288.

[10]  Francis – XVI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops,  For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation and Mission. Final Document,  October 26, 2024.

[11]  A. Awi Mello,  Mary the Church: Mother of the Missionary People. Pope Francis and Popular Marian Piety in the Context of Latin America , Agape, Buenos Aires, 2019; See also: Papa Francesco in Dialogue with Alexandre Awi Mello,  È mia Madre,  Città Nuova, Rome 2018.

[12]  A. Valeriano,  Nican Mopohua,  trd. Mario Rojas, Indice Editores, Mexico 2016, nn 26-31. We follow Mario Rojas’s translation in general. In some passages, after consultation, we modify some construction, to emphasize some accent. The Nahuatl version and its precise meaning, word by word, are always consulted. For this, we use, among others: JL Guerrero,  El Nican Mopohua. An attempt at exegesis , Pontifical University of Mexico, Mexico 1998, 2 vols.

[13]  Saint John Paul II,  Ecclesia in America,  n. 11.

[14]  Francis, “Rethinking the paths of peoples and their cultures,” Introduction to R. Buttiglione,  Paths to a theology of the people and culture,  Pontifical Catholic University of Valparaíso, 2022, p. 19.

[15]  Francis,  Homily,  December 12, 2022.

[16]  Nican Mopohua , n. 119.

[17]  Cf. Leo XIV,  Homily , June 9, 2025.

[18]  Nican Mopohua , 187.

[19]  Leo XIV,  Homily , August 15, 2025.