Generation Z  – approximately those born between 1997 and 2012 –  constitutes a social group that is entering adulthood and is beginning to shape dynamics of identity, participation, and belonging, different from previous generations.

From a political perspective, Generation Z is characterized by high digital fluency. This means that this generation is accustomed to acting online and giving visibility to its demands, including political ones, through digital formats. However, this does not translate into adherence to traditional parties. Methods of clientele, hierarchical affiliation, or campaigns based on the traditional territorial structure are ill-suited to an audience accustomed to networking, horizontal structures, and a demand for authenticity.

On the other hand, within the Church, the situation is no different. Young people demand inclusion, transparency, dialogue, and a sense of community that goes beyond mere ritual. The institution often expects young people to “join” its dynamics, while young people demand that the Church transform itself, listen to them, and incorporate them as active participants.

Why is it so difficult to fully embrace this generation? First, due to the disconnect between generational expectations and the institutional framework.  Political parties have been designed for citizens who trust in institutional mediation. For Generation Z, parties are unrepresentative, inflexible, too entrenched in “pre-established procedures,” and distant from a youthful symbolic repertoire marked by the digital, the immediate, and the performative.

Second, in the case of the Church, the problem takes on cultural and symbolic dimensions.  Generation Z possesses a sensitivity to the multifaceted nature of reality, to social justice, and to questioning power structures. When the Church fails to adequately interpret these emphases—or when it continues to privilege models of authority without youthful co-responsibility—it falls behind. Furthermore, young people’s participation in spiritual matters does not always occur through traditional practices, but rather through virtual communities, networks, micro-groups, or hybrid spaces to which conventional pastoral care tends to be slow to respond.

Generation Z’s world is mediated by screens, social networks, influencers, and global communities. Meanwhile, political parties and the Church still operate with systems of belonging and participation designed in a pre-digital world.  In other words, there is a disconnect between institutional approaches and the new youth cultures.

In conclusion, Mexico’s Generation Z represents both a challenge and an opportunity for everyone. The Church, for example, clearly needs to accompany forms of Christian experience that allow for questioning, greater inclusivity, and new forms of synodal engagement. Ignoring this generation is tantamount to ignoring the present and future of the social fabric. But embracing it demands institutional transformation, active listening, symbolic adaptation, and a genuine commitment to youth leadership. This is the generational urgency before us.