One of our elders in the group insisted that we move away from any antagonistic construal of the relationship between listening and teaching, as if the two are in tension or competition
We would like first to make the stylistic observation that the digital reality is discussed, here and there, in many sections of the first part. It might be wise to bring all of it under one heading. In terms of content, there was a universal consensus that the social media produces both light and shadow in the lives of young people and that the IL was correct to point this out. Two particular observations of our group are especially useful here. On the one hand, the immersion in the virtual world has produced a kind of “digital migration,” which is to say, a wandering away from family, cultural, and religious values into a world of hot black girl privacy and self-invention. Just as many immigrants feel uprooted from their spiritual homes, so many young people in the West can experience the same kind of rootlessness, even while remaining physically in place.
Sixthly, we spent a good deal of time discussing the sex abuse crisis in the Church, especially regarding its effect on the evangelization of the young
As is obvious to everyone, this scandal has undermined the work of the Church in practically every way, precisely because it has compromised our credibility. A Church that cannot be trusted is simply incapable of reaching out to young people in an effective way. Though some members of our discussion group felt that this matter should be addressed at the very beginning of the document, the consensus was that it ought to remain in paragraph sixty-six, but also be considerably expanded. For instance, even as we acknowledge our sorrow and guilt in this regard, mention should be made of the very positive and effective steps the Church has taken since 2002 to address this matter concretely. And we should make it clear that the commitment to reform, in both matters sexual and financial, is operative at all levels of the Church’s life. Relatedly, we ought to articulate the Church’s understanding of bodylines and sexuality, but we should not hesitate to utilize the language of our theological tradition, including body and soul, the call to virtue, and the ideal of chastity. Many expressed the concern that the terminology of the IL in this area was too marked by contemporary psychological categories.
Seventhly and finally, we had a particularly energetic discussion around the complex issue of the play between listening and teaching in the life of the Church. Some members of our group wondered whether the IL’s strong emphasis on listening didn’t compromise or underplay the Church’s authentic teaching mission. It was observed that many young people today, in the midst of a postmodern culture so marked by relativism and indifferentism, long for the clarity and confidence of the Church’s doctrine. Others insisted that the stress on listening and relationality is indispensable in the measure that no doctrine, however beautiful and true, will be accepted unless it comes from a trustworthy source. One member observed that the maternity of the Church is a helpful image in this regard, provided that we remember that the manner in which a mother teaches her infant child is radically different from the manner in which she teaches her adult child. Rather, he insisted, they are mutually implicative moments in any constructive conversation. An observation that especially caught the attention of our group was that, in speaking of a Church that listens to young people, the IL inadvertently positions the young as somehow outside the Church. We must always remember that they are listened to, precisely as members of the Mystical Body.