Appearance is often suspect. Depth is authentic and appearance is "mere" appearance. This dialectic between substance and form affects public debates about values. On the one hand, positions on substantive issues - life, slavery, immigration - form the substance; on the other hand, these positions enter the debate in processes of appearance, which affect the perceptions and judgments of others.
So, when a Catholic participates in a public debate, how does his position on the issue "appear"? If we start from a realistic communication model, three related messages can be recognized: a message about the issue; a message about the relationship - about the kind of bond that his way of communicating creates with the other, for example, by promoting a culture of encounter; and a message about his identity - his position, his way of communicating it and his way of relating to others, say something about who that person is.
In a positive sense, effective communication consists of contributing to the debate by mobilizing the Church's point of view on the corresponding topic, while at the same time manifesting the Catholic identity with the greatest clarity for the greatest number of people, and generating in the interlocutor a greater openness to the message due to an improvement in the interaction relationship.
In a negative sense, incomplete or paradoxical situations could arise: presenting one's position on an issue and betraying one's identity in the process of mobilizing the issue; presenting a vision, but wearing down or destroying relationships that then hinder the pastoral task or coexistence; avoiding witnessing on a sensitive issue to avoid the tension of dealing with a hostile interlocutor.
This complex world challenges us to ensure that the truth of identity not only exists in our intentions, but also appears to others in our actions and communications.
Professor of Sociology of Communication. Austral University (Buenos Aires)
