Compassionate Imagination/Re-Existing/Hope: Embracing a Deliberate Turn to the Promptings of the Spirit for a Synodal Church

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are many fine points made in this article.  It makes a valuable contribution to the literature on synodalityand turns the attention of readers to aspects which have been neglected; in particular, the need for openness to the Holy Spirit.   

I recommend that the author clarifies what he or she means (pp.4, 5) by scarce and scarcity and how this relates to surplus because, for this reader, at least, I felt unclear about the scope and meaning and type of scarcity being referred to. 

I wondered about the point made on p.4 about 'the suspension of judgment'.  Does not discernment inevitably involve some element of judgment - for example, of false routes to avoid, wrong values to embrace, false promises to resist? Some comment on how suspension of judgement might need to be balanced by the imperative to exercise some judgements might be helpful. 

Some of the writing in the article is almost poetic and elegiac and very effective and moving, but be aware that some of the language seems rather abstract.  Review the article with this concern in mind.

The comment (p.6) about 'a church that goes to the peripheries and makes the stories of the marginalized its own stories' prompted me to add in the margin: 'also a call to a conversion of heart by those NOT at the peripheries; they too can be a source of wisdom and truth.'  

Please clarify what you mean by the term 're-existing' (p.6).  I was perplexed by the line (p.7, lines 335-6) 'a turn to re-existing by its members through their embodiment of sensus fidelium helps to foster the praxis and culture of re-existing.'  Can you re-phrase that sentence to make it clearer.  I did find helpul your comment about re-existing on p.8 lines 383ff - but this came rather late in the paper.  

Also p.7 - your wording - 'illogicality becomes the correct way of seeing and responding to the signs of the times' - my response was: 'surely, a different, expanded, richer understanding of logic is needed, rather than illogicality?'

I am not sure that your definition of apophatic (p.7) quite reflects the usual meaning of this word. 

p.10. line 517 - 'responding to the needs, desires, aspirations, hopes and imaginations of not just its members, but those who are its neighbours' - please consider the possible objection: 'but what if fidelity to the Gospel calls for questioning and critique of some of these desires etc, rather than fulfilling them?  

I think attention to some of the issues raised here would improve the article and make it more accessible to readers.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Permit me to express my sincere gratitude to you for your diligence in reviewing my manuscript and offering a detailed feedback. Based on your feedback, I have revised the manuscript and added several paragraphs and/or sentences to tighten the arguments being made. I corrected all the sentences you called attention to. I also engaged some authors I previously did not engage when I initially submitted the manuscript. To ensure that you see the corrections I have made, I went ahead to highlight them in red font.

Again, I am truly appreciative of your review.

Sincerely

Author

Reviewer 2 Report

On p. 6. The author uses 'lex orandi lex credendi est' and then varies this with 'lex vivendi lex credendi est'.  But the author should bear in mind that lex orandi, lex credendi is not a real Latin quotation but a Latin-tag used as a theological shorthand. The original is 'lex orandi ... legem credendi statuat' and so when used as a tag it does not have a verb. If you feel it does need an explicit verb, then it would be in the subjunctive:  lex orandi lex credenti sit and lex vivendi lex credendi sit.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Permit me to express my sincere gratitude to you for your diligence in reviewing my manuscript and offering a detailed feedback. Based on your feedback, I have revised the manuscript and added several paragraphs and/or sentences to tighten the arguments being made. I corrected all the sentences you called attention to. I also engaged some authors I previously did not engage when I initially submitted the manuscript. To ensure that you see the corrections I have made, I went ahead to highlight them in red font.

Again, I am truly appreciative of your review.

Sincerely

Author

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for this excellent contribution. I found the paper most interesting and relevant. At the same time I appreciate the scholarship which characterized different dimensions of the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Permit me to express my sincere gratitude to you for your diligence in reviewing my manuscript and offering a detailed feedback. Based on your feedback, I have revised the manuscript and added several paragraphs and/or sentences to tighten the arguments being made. I corrected all the sentences you called attention to. I also engaged some authors I previously did not engage when I initially submitted the manuscript. To ensure that you see the corrections I have made, I went ahead to highlight them in red font.

Again, I am truly appreciative of your review.

Sincerely

Author

Reviewer 4 Report

The present article is not only deeply inspiring on account of its rather essayistic character, but also extremely insightful both in its diagnosis of the current ecclesial/societal situation and in the proposals it makes for church praxis/changes. In the main, I can only subscribe to the proposed tri-movements (compassionate imagination, a theo-praxis of re-existing, and the liberating ability of the praxis of hope). Bearing this in mind, I definitely recommend the publication of this article.

Having said that, please allow me to humbly make a few remarks that might be useful both for the author and the editor. Overall, they concern some formal aspects, rather than the content, although one can never separate both that neatly.

The first observation is relative to the very concept of “Pentecost church”. Despite the fact that this concept occupies center stage in the author(s)’s deliberations, no reference is made as to the genesis of this concept: Is this concept suggested by Pope Francis, by the author(s) or by someone else? And, more importantly, how does a “Pentecost church” relate to “Pentecostal/charismatic churches? Does this proposal amount to a pentecostalization/ charismatization of the church? I think a sentence or a footnote in that regard would be useful for readers so as to better understand what the author(s) is/are really proposing.

The second refers to the idea of empire / empire ethics. Even though one might understand what the author(s) mean(s) by this term, the argumentation seems to me rather vague, and the claims at large are not substantiated, but simply stated. Now, as long as these claims remain generalized, I don’t see any major problem (from a theoretical viewpoint). Quite problematic appears to me, conversely, the following statement: “We are all aware of how the culture of violence and the perpetuation of imperialistic agenda is promoted by the United States of America through the idolatry of remembering the events of September 11, 2001. When, in actuality, it has nothing to do with the memories of those who died on that day. It is more about promoting an agenda of expansionism (lines 230-234).” In this case, the author(s) make(s) a strong claim/ insinuation/ accusation, and instead of providing evidence (bibliographic references, news, examples etc.) to support it, he/she/they just start(s) the sentence with “we are all aware …” My impression is that, rather than contributing to the line of argument, it weakens it on the grounds that it is not sufficiently substantiated/ backed up. Therefore, I’d recommend reconsidering/ reformulating this passage.

The same applies to sentences such as: “Francis is intentionally being faithful to the commitment made by the Second Vatican Council (line 483)” and “It is quite telling that those who voice publicly their resistance to Francis’ … (line 488)”. Where is the evidence to affirm that Francis is intentionally doing so, and not otherwise? As for the latter sentence: who is voicing resistance to Francis? Where is the evidence for this? What is/are the author(s) referring to? Are there examples?

Finally, a statement such as “Praxis that is not about the pruning of traditions, memories, insights, and rituals will always lead to staleness and death (line 514)” is fine – and absolutely necessary, by the way. However, on the basis of which criteria are traditions, memories etc. be pruned? By the inspiration of the Holy Spirit along the lines of a Pentecostal church – I so suppose in light of the train of thought? If that is the case, what are the criteria to discern what is inspired by the Holy Spirit and what is not? The question of tradition seems to me to be much more complex than how it is put in this text – and I’m sure the author(s) is well aware of it too. The whole point of my criticism is that apodictic statements such as this are often problematic in academic texts.

In addition, I kindly recommend carefully reconsidering the following phrases, as they may contain grammar/spelling mistakes (numbers refer to line numbers):

97: hope as a summon to embrace
103: Imagination for A Pentecost Church
197: it will necessarily carryout its mission
258: which is a summon to embrace
273: (Gomes 2021, “Pope to Priests: Be ‘Shepherds with ‘The Smell of the Sheep’’”)
276: (Gomes, “Pope to Priests: Be ‘Shepherds with ‘The Smell of the Sheep’’”).
372: to accrue more titles Catholic News Service 2013.
414: whether, national, regional, or global
418: Synodality as An Embodiment
444: (Gomes 2021, “Pope: ‘Having Received Mercy, Let Us Now Become Merciful’”)
535: to take seriously the summon of Francis
539: A decolonial approach to evangelization that Francis advocates for decenters all dynamics of power at the center

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Permit me to express my sincere gratitude to you for your diligence in reviewing my manuscript and offering a detailed feedback. Based on your feedback, I have revised the manuscript and added several paragraphs and/or sentences to tighten the arguments being made. I corrected all the sentences you called attention to. I also engaged some authors I previously did not engage when I initially submitted the manuscript. To ensure that you see the corrections I have made, I went ahead to highlight them in red font.

Again, I am truly appreciative of your review.

Sincerely

Author