We gain nothing by defending my personal dream instead of our shared dream
Archbishop Cabrejos warns that defending personal political dreams over the common good destroys nations, citing Peru's institutional instability with four presidents in five years. The Church commits to serving as a bridge for dialogue and mediating between government and opposition, while remaining politically neutral and focused on the common good.
- Peru had four presidents and two separate congresses in five years before the 2021 election
- The presidential runoff campaign was marked by racist rhetoric, discriminatory attacks, and violence
- The Church commits to serving as a bridge for dialogue while remaining politically neutral
- New government priorities include consolidating vaccination campaigns and protecting women and children from violence
Peru's Catholic Church leader urges politicians and citizens to abandon partisan divisions and violence, calling for dialogue and solidarity as the nation marks its bicentennial and begins a new government.
Miguel Cabrejos, the head of Peru's Catholic bishops' conference, sat down in the days after a bruising presidential election to deliver a message that cut against the moment: stop defending your own vision and start defending the country.
It was late July 2021, and Peru was fractured. The runoff election had been ugly—marked by racist rhetoric, discriminatory attacks, and violence. The nation was preparing to swear in Pedro Castillo as president while marking 200 years of independence. Cabrejos, speaking from the conference's headquarters in Lima, wanted the political class to hear something uncomfortable: that personal ambition dressed up as principle was destroying the nation.
He invoked a quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian executed by the Nazis. "Whoever loves his dream of the Christian community more than the community itself will become a destroyer of that community, even with good intentions." Change "Christian community" to "nation," Cabrejos said, and the truth remained intact. A politician who loved his own political dream more than Peru itself would end up destroying Peru. The country had already paid the price for this kind of thinking. In the past five years, Peru had cycled through four presidents and two separate congresses—a churn that had prevented coherent governance, blocked institutional consolidation, and hampered the pandemic response. Democracy itself had been battered.
The Church's position was clear: unity had to come before ideology. Cabrejos called for sincere dialogue, for building bridges of solidarity and fraternity rather than walls of resentment. "Peru is divided, split apart," he said. "But we gain nothing by defending my personal dream instead of our shared dream." The bicentennial moment demanded a reset—one that included everyone, not just the victors or the ideologically pure.
When asked how the nation could heal after the racist and discriminatory messages that had poisoned the campaign, Cabrejos offered a different kind of pragmatism. Yes, reject the polarization. Yes, look forward. But also remember that no saint has lacked a past and no sinner lacks a future. The point was not to litigate history endlessly but to build something new on authentic solidarity, not false or hypocritical versions of it. All people carried dignity—regardless of color, size, or origin. All were children of God, part of one human family.
On the new government's priorities, Cabrejos was direct. The vaccination campaigns and health infrastructure that had been built needed to be consolidated and strengthened. The Church would help through its social work. But the focus had to remain on the poorest, on women, on children. When pressed on whether gender-based policy was necessary to end machismo and femicide, he did not hedge. Women were being beaten by their own partners. The government needed laws to protect them. Children needed protection from abuse and violence. These were not separate issues—they were interconnected, part of a larger commitment to human dignity.
The Church itself, Cabrejos insisted, was not neutral in the way a political party might be. It had two arms: evangelization and social doctrine. It had been present at Peru's birth as a republic and would remain present now, working with all sectors of society, not just one. But the Church would not align itself with any political party. Its commitment was to Peru, to society, to the common good. If the new government faced opposition in Congress or veered toward extremes, the Church would serve as a bridge, promoting dialogue and seeking solutions that advanced integral progress—not just individual gain. That was its function. That was its role. Service to human dignity.
Citações Notáveis
Whoever loves his dream of the Christian community more than the community itself will become a destroyer of that community, even with good intentions— Dietrich Bonhoeffer, cited by Archbishop Cabrejos
Peru is divided, split apart, but we gain nothing by defending my personal dream instead of our shared dream— Archbishop Miguel Cabrejos
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
When you say the Church won't align with any party but will serve as a bridge, how do you actually do that without looking like you're just blessing whoever is in power?
You listen. Real listening—not just hearing words, but hearing the cries of society. You work with all sectors, not just the government. You hold up principles that transcend any one administration: dignity, the common good, protection of the vulnerable. If the government fails those principles, you say so. If the opposition does, you say so too.
But Peru just elected a leftist president after a very polarized campaign. Doesn't the Church have concerns about where this might go?
The Church's concern is not about left or right. It's about whether policies serve the common good or just narrow interests. We've seen four presidents in five years—that's the real crisis. Whoever is in power needs to consolidate what works, especially on health and vaccines, and focus on the poorest people.
You mentioned women and children specifically. Is the Church saying it will push the Castillo government on gender violence and femicide?
Yes. The Pope himself said governments must create laws to defend women from violence. That's not a political position—it's a moral one. Women are being beaten by their own partners. Children are being abused. These are not partisan issues.
What about the racism and discrimination that came out during the campaign? How does a nation move past that?
You reject it completely. You acknowledge it happened. But you don't spend the next decade relitigating it. You build something new on authentic solidarity—not false reconciliation, but real fraternity. Everyone has dignity. Everyone is part of one human family. That's where you start.
And if the government and Congress can't find common ground? If it gets worse?
Then the Church keeps doing what it's always done: serve as a place where dialogue can happen. We don't judge whether the government is right or wrong—that's not our function. But we never stop being a bridge.