From Secular Spaces to Religious Places: The Case of the Romanian Orthodox Place of Worship of Lunghezza (Rome, Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is well-written and the logic and sturcture is good. 

However, the article spend a lot of time on theory and method - and then a very long list of emperical material and one case study - before it finnally on the last page (14) discuss the results and conclude. 

The paper is really impressive in its method and its data, but the analysis, discussion and conclusion is one page? beside that it seems more to be a long list of emperical facts and names of various Rumanian Orthodox congregations. I would really like to see the author unfold the analysis and dicussion much more, such as in the last pages.  

It could use a short intro to Orthodox architecture (iconostatis, nave etc) and the structures of Orthodox churches (buildings) - as well as an intro to how Orthodox bless churches and why that matters (outside a Catholic and Orthodox theological world this is not generally known).

I dont really get or buy the split between sacred and religious space. I can not 'clearly distinguish' (line 57) between those two - and in particular in an Orthodox setting, does it seem quite irrelevant. What is the difference? the text is loaded with complex theoretical language, but fails to simply answer, what is the difference and why does it matter. Also, a theoretical discussion of the sacred should include Rudolf Otto's notion of the sacred space - or at least relate or discuss it. And I also do not find the seperation used very much in the analysis and final dicussion - why have 1-2 pages on theory and then hardly any use of it? This could be improved. (theory 48-65)

It is a rather thin definition of multi-faith spaces, perhaps refer to Terry Biddington, 'Multifaith Spaces: History, Development, Design and Practice' and his definition. It will make the analysis more operational (108) or simply cut that section, because it is hardly used in the analysis. 

p. 5-8 is a lot of listing and detailed description of specific sites. It is written in a good english, but hard to keep track of, if one does not know the geography around Rome. It would be better, if the section gave a bit more overview and general lines instead of simply listing what seems to be everything (or move the list to an index by the end for those interested in that). 

The text end a bit abrupt with the very short analysis or conclusion - it should engange more with its theory and method - and perhaps tell us, if the case is just a lonely one or if there are others like that. I think it should engange with findings in Marco Guglielmi The Romanian Orthodox Diaspora in Italy, 2022 much more (which the author must know, because they cite it). The book could also be used to a bit more contextualization of the Romanian Orthodox community in Italy. 

The text is good in many ways, but the theory and empirical material is the main part. The author should work on the analysis and dicussion: why does all this matter and what does it tell us about religion. 

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the paper. We detail the changes in the following: 1) The paper is really impressive in its method and its data, but the analysis, discussion and conclusion is one page? beside that it seems more to be a long list of emperical facts and names of various Rumanian Orthodox congregations. I would really like to see the author unfold the analysis and discussion much more, such as in the last pages. Thank you for this comment. We have made the themes and theoretical approaches solid in the introduction and made the conclusions dense, starting with the topic of camouflage and resilience and substantiating well the use of the category of shared religious places 2) It could use a short intro to Orthodox architecture (iconostatis, nave etc) and the structures of Orthodox churches (buildings) - as well as an intro to how Orthodox bless churches and why that matters (outside a Catholic and Orthodox theological world this is not generally known) Thank you for this comment. We added a simple reference, but indeed important for better understanding our point. 3) I dont really get or buy the split between sacred and religious space. I can not 'clearly distinguish' (line 57) between those two - and in particular in an Orthodox setting, does it seem quite irrelevant. What is the difference? the text is loaded with complex theoretical language, but fails to simply answer, what is the difference and why does it matter. Also, a theoretical discussion of the sacred should include Rudolf Otto's notion of the sacred space - or at least relate or discuss it. And I also do not find the separation used very much in the analysis and final dicussion - why have 1-2 pages on theory and then hardly any use of it? This could be improved. (theory 48-65) Thank you for the suggestion. since the special issue focuses on places which are not sacred, we directly moved to the sense of religious and not sacred as was asked; we think that in the introduction of the issue the topic will be developed both theoretically and methodologically and we also quoted the Hervieu Leger approach towards sacred and religious. 3) It is a rather thin definition of multi-faith spaces, perhaps refer to Terry Biddington, 'Multifaith Spaces: History, Development, Design and Practice' and his definition. It will make the analysis more operational (108) or simply cut that section, because it is hardly used in the analysis. Thank you for pointing this out. We added the reference to the book that we know and discussed an added also a reflection of one scholar who wrote about this topic from a DH point of view. 4) p. 5-8 is a lot of listing and detailed description of specific sites. It is written in a good english, but hard to keep track of, if one does not know the geography around Rome. It would be better, if the section gave a bit more overview and general lines instead of simply listing what seems to be everything (or move the list to an index by the end for those interested in that). Thank you for the suggestion. We believe it is essential to maintain the geographical framework presented on pages 5 to 8. However, we accept the suggestion to make the text more fluent. We have therefore enriched the two paragraphs with two specific maps. The maps will help the reader to understand the location of the listed Orthodox places of worship and thus to understand the specificity of Romanian Orthodoxy in the territory of the metropolitan city of Rome. 5) The text end a bit abrupt with the very short analysis or conclusion - it should engange more with its theory and method - and perhaps tell us, if the case is just a lonely one or if there are others like that. I think it should engange with findings in Marco Guglielmi The Romanian Orthodox Diaspora in Italy, 2022 much more (which the author must know, because they cite it). The book could also be used to a bit more contextualization of the Romanian Orthodox community in Italy. Thank you for the suggestion. We refer to this broader frame in the geographical section and in the conclusions as well.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a fascinating article providing a narrative snapshot into contemporary Romanian Orthodox life and practice in Italy. As the article makes clear this is a sizeable and growing minority community in Italy and they face considerable challenges to live out worship and related religious activities in their new situation. All that is well articulated. However, the article focuses a lot on the technology and tools employed in the analysis, much of which is unnecessary or could be footnoted. As a result of this technical focus, it suffers by not engaging more fully with Romanian (and wider) Orthodox tradition and theology of space and liturgy, as well as architecture throughout Orthodox history (which has been much more varied and "adapted" than the article implies). By situating the current plight of Romanian Orthodox in Italty in a wider perspective, some more significant conclusions might be drawn from this research. Nevertheless, overall this remains a good article.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their encouragement and appreciation. 

We detail the changes in the following:

1)  The article focuses a lot on the technology and tools employed in the analysis, much of which is unnecessary or could be footnoted. 

Thank you for pointing this out. We shortened a bit this methodological part.

2) As a result of this technical focus, it suffers by not engaging more fully with Romanian (and wider) Orthodox tradition and theology of space and liturgy, as well as architecture throughout Orthodox history (which has been much more varied and "adapted" than the article implies). 

By situating the current plight of Romanian Orthodox in Italy in a wider perspective, some more significant conclusions might be drawn from this research. 

Thank you for pointing this out. We corrected this part, adding some reflections about orthodox space and orthodoxy in Italy.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is focusing on the using of GIS mapping and Digital Humanities methodology.  The analysis is very interesting because using this methodology for the evaluation of the liturgical space of tbe Orthodox Church is a novelty. In the same time, the paper presents the dinamic of a migrant religious community with its challenges in a non-orthodox country, which is also an original contribution. In order to adress the article to a broder audience,  I suggest to have a short analysis of the canonical liturgical spaces of an Orthodox church building, and the liturgical space analysed in the paper. For an Orthodox beliver would be very interesting to know how the theological  simbolism of the canonical sacred space was reinterpreted in a secular space.

Author Response

 

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 3

 

We would like to thank the reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the paper. We detail the changes in the following:

 

1. In order to address the article to a broder audience, I suggest to have a short analysis of the canonical liturgical spaces of an Orthodox church building, and the liturgical space analysed in the paper.  For an Orthodox beliver would be very interesting to know how the theological  simbolism of the canonical sacred space was reinterpreted in a secular space.

Thank you. We refer to this point now better; we want to develop this point in another common paper, since we think it is pivotal

Author Response File: Author Response.docx