Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I occasionally found the prose to be too informal.  Line 146, a "recipe".  Line 179-80 "since the dawn of time."  Line 53, please delete the word "anyway."

Line 74: does "It" refer to "Clericalism" or "This form of clericalism"?  The pronoun "it" is grammatically unclear in that sentence.

I did not find the generic definition of clericalism to be useful.  Even though Pope Francis himself associated clericalism with authoritarianism, I don't find that association useful.  Clericalism is different from the authoritarian power of a corporate CEO or a military dictator.  I find the concept to be useful only in the context of religious institutions, and I think the discussion should remain in that context.

The level of the English prose is not solid enough for publication. There are typos and grammatical errors (not too many but some) but, more importantly, there is a lack of precision in the prose: conclusions are too generic and obvious, the tone switches from formal to informal and back.

While I may share the authors' conclusion that clericalism is not productive and has done harm within the Catholic Church, I found the comparison of clericalism to a "virus" to be inappropriate.  See lines 94 and 227.  In lines 100-101, clericalism is described as being dangerous and destructive. Is this an objective scholarly study or an opinion-based essay drawing upon scholarly literature?  The authors' bias is clear and perhaps warranted, but "virus" is over-the-top.

While the problems described would seem to be found throughout the global Catholic Church, and the quotations from Pope Francis are clearly meant to apply global meaning, the opening section focuses exclusively on the United States.

See lines 128 and 339-40.  These sentences seem to state that being powerful is ideal and enjoyable and pleasant.  And then, the opposite is stressed.  This is an odd tone for a scholarly journal, the rhetoric here is conversational and not academic.

Finally, lines 335-38, this is an unproven claim that again reveals the authors' bias.  While the concept "absolute power corrupts absolutely" may be common sense, it still needs to be shown that popes are more authoritarian than bishops, who are more authoritarian than priests.  Claims still need to be justified even if they are common sense.I thought and hoped this paper would be a social-scientific analysis of the problems faced by priests. 

Author Response

Please see attached file entitled Reviewer 1

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The one adjustment I would make in this article has to do with the reference to priests "vowing" celibacy.  Actually only religious priests would "vow' celibacy, priests who are not members of religous orders, simply make a "promise" of celibacy and obedience at the time of ordination. The authors will want to consider changing the reference in the abstract and throughout the essay to "vowed clerics" to something like clerics "dedicted to celibacy and obedience." Similary the reference in the abstract to "Catholic priests take vows of chastity and obedience" could be changed to "Catholic priests make promises of chastity and obedience, and, among religious order clerics take vows of chastity, obedience and poverty." It is a distinction which would be familiar to readers who are knowledgeable about priesthood in the context of Roman Catholicism.

Author Response

Please see attached file entitled Reviewer 2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.