The internal crisis in the Anglican Church of Mexico has solidified into a durable schism, with rival structures and competing claims to authority. What began as a dispute over teaching and discipline has become a struggle over how power is exercised, how leaders are chosen, and how truthfulness and due process are handled in the life of the province.
At the centre is the Rt. Rev. Julio César Martín Trejo of the Diocese of the Southeast. Once best known for his advocacy of LGBT inclusion, he has become the focal point of a governance conflict in which he and other bishops challenge both the legitimacy of the current primate’s election and the integrity of his subsequent conduct.
The present turmoil cannot be understood without the disputed 2022 elections in the Diocese of Northern Mexico and at the national synod that followed. An electoral synod in the North met in April 2022 in Monterrey; five clergy say they were prevented from entering the voting site, and the synod proceeded to elect the Rev. Óscar Pulido as bishop‑elect amid protests, public letters rejecting the election, and claims of threats and coercion.
Less than two months later, a General Synod met in Mexico City to elect a new primate. Because the Northern election was already in dispute, two competing delegations from that diocese presented themselves: one aligned with Bishop-elect Pulido, the other with former Bishop Francisco Manuel Moreno. As acting primate, Bishop Enrique Treviño recognised the Pulido‑led delegation, and that delegation supported Bishop Treviño for primate.
Bishop Martín was the other candidate for primate, but he withdrew his name, later arguing that the two‑thirds majority required by canon law for a primatial election had not been reached. Nonetheless, according to synod minutes, Bishop Treviño was declared the victor, and has been recognised as primate by the Anglican Consultative Council and other external bodies. From Bishop Martín’s perspective, the primate’s election rests on a deeply flawed process in which a contested diocesan delegation was seated, a disputed bishop‑elect’s supporters were given decisive weight, and canonical voting thresholds were not met.
Those procedural objections have since been reinforced, in Bishop Martín’s camp, by concerns about Bishop Treviño’s subsequent conduct. At its XXXVI Synod last month, the Diocese of Southeastern Mexico adopted a formal motion addressing statements by Bishop Treviño concerning Bishop Martín.
The resolution, prepared by diocesan canonist the Rev. John E. Hayes and seconded by the Rev. Andrés S. Cámara, alleges that Bishop Enrique Treviño Cruz “has published in electronic means false statements in regards to the ecclesiastical authority of our bishop, Rt. Revd. Julio C. Martin T,” and that he “has verbally and in electronic media made false statements and allegations” that Martín stole diocesan assets “in the excess of $1,000,000 pesos and later $1,000,000 USD,” among other claims. It notes further allegations from Bishop Treviño that Bishop Martín has been removed from office, is “a fugitive of the law,” has abandoned his family, and has stolen a diocesan vehicle.
The synod counters that “there is not any secular or ecclesiastical legal process against Bishop Martin,” and resolves to “manifest its disgust and pain that a clergy of any sacred order would slander other clergy, not the least when the culprit is a bishop with jurisdiction,” calling on Bishop Treviño “to stop spreading false allegations in reference to our bishop, Rt. Revd. Julio C. Martin.”
For supporters of Bishop Martín, the picture is coherent: a primatial election conducted on contested ground, followed by a pattern of public accusations not backed, they say, by any court or canonical judgment. In their view, this combination undermines Bishop Treviño’s moral authority and calls his exercise of primatial power into serious question.
The Diocese of the Southeast presents itself as defending both its bishop and due process. Synod and parish communications continue to speak of “full members of the Synod of the Anglican Diocese of the Southeast under the pastoral leadership of our bishop, Dr Julio César Martín,” and of “defending the Gospel of inclusion and justice” amid internal conflict.
In this framing, contesting the primate’s authority is not a bid for control but a response to what they see as electoral irregularities, a deficit of transparency, and damaging public allegations. Martín has been quoted describing “a lack of transparency, a tolerance for corruption, and a deficit of democratic values that permeate numerous institutions in the country, including the church, including our church,” and insisting, with regard to the elections, that “you can’t just turn a blind eye to fraud.” For his diocese, resisting such a pattern is described less as schism and more as fidelity to conscience and to the rule of law
All this sits atop earlier strains around sexuality and doctrine. The Anglican Church of Mexico has attempted to maintain a “global centre” stance: formally affirming the received doctrine of marriage while trying to contain a range of pastoral responses. Bishop Martín’s support for civil same‑sex marriage, his advocacy for LGBT rights, and his promotion of draft rites for blessing same‑gender couples were viewed by many colleagues as a step beyond what the province had agreed.
When the national synod refused to endorse those initiatives and slowed the process, the gap between the Southeast and much of the episcopate widened. For critics, this confirmed a pattern of overreach. For Bishop Martín, it confirmed that entrenched groups “impose their candidates and decide who votes,” and that deeper reforms were needed.
From the provincial centre, however, the key reference point remains the recognition given by the ACC and regional primates to Bishop Treviño’s election. Leaders such as Archbishop Linda Nicholls, regional primate for the Americas, have indicated that, in the eyes of the wider Communion, Bishop Treviño is still regarded as primate, even while internal disputes continue.
Provincial authorities describe the response of Bishop Martín and his allies not only as dissent but as schism. Explanatory material linked to the Consejo de Administración (Council of Administration) states that “dissidents, led by the Most Reverend Julio César Martín of the Southeast of Mexico,” have withdrawn recognition from Treviño as primate and sought to “restore” another figure—former primate Francisco Moreno—as acting primate
In 2023, Bishops Martín, Ricardo Gómez (Western Mexico), and Moreno constituted a board claiming to be the church’s legal governing body, voting to strip Bishop Treviño of his primacy and install Bishop Moreno in his place, while retaining control of financial accounts in the North and the Province of Mexico. For the official side, this is the decisive step over the line: an alternative governing structure claiming the name and assets of the national church.
The Council’s communiqué on “the situation of Mr. Julio César Martín Trejo” declares that it “disapproves actions that are out of order and that transgress the essential limits of responsibility and common sense,” and warns against unilateral attempts to “suplantar las instituciones sinodales y colegiadas” – to supplant synodical and collegial institutions. From this vantage point, the crisis is one of discipline: a diocesan leader, in their view, refusing to accept legitimate decisions and damaging the church’s common life.
The domestic clash is intensified by wider Anglican realignment. In Latin America, Caminemos Juntos (“Let’s Walk Together”) has emerged as a GAFCON‑aligned church‑planting movement, gathering congregations under the Anglican Church in North America and other GAFCON provinces rather than under historic national churches.civicrm.
GAFCON’s own material recounts that some Mexican congregations left the Anglican Church of Mexico when, in their view, it adopted teaching contrary to Scripture, and that they gathered under ACNA and Caminemos Juntos to “reach Mexico” with alternative Anglican oversight. While GAFCON has not issued a formal ruling on the Treviño–Martín dispute or proclaimed a new province for Mexico, its presence provides a ready‑made home for conservatives disillusioned with the internal conflict.
Viewed together, the pieces form a layered conflict. For Bishop Martín and his supporters, the primate’s election was flawed, the structures that validated it lack transparency, and the subsequent pattern of public accusation has crossed a moral line. For Bishop Treviño and the provincial Council, the dissenting bishops have responded to disagreement and scrutiny by creating a rival board, seizing control of funds, and attempting to depose a duly recognised primate.
With both sides appealing to law, canon and conscience—and with external actors quietly shaping the landscape—the Mexican church finds itself in a prolonged standoff. Until the questions around the primate’s election and the truthfulness of the charges and counter‑charges are tested in forums both sides accept, the most likely trajectory remains the slow normalisation of division: parallel structures, contested narratives, and ordinary Anglicans forced to decide whose account of legitimacy and integrity they find more persuasive.