Catholic Church’s Communication in the Era of Bergoglio: Balancing Tradition and a New Leadership

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

General commentaries

This article presents an analysis of the communication of the Catholic Church in the time of Bergoglio (Pope Francis) from the perspectives of tradition and a new leadership. His main contribution is to deepen the pontificate of Pope Francis and mass media. It establishes a coherence with previous pontificates. It provides valid documentation and several lines of future research.

 

"Reconsider after major revision". I think the authors could review and improve this manuscript. It is a topic of interest, there is good documentation. In my opinion, it is to improve the approach and incorporate some documents.

The manuscript cites research of 2021 and 2022. It would be interesting to incorporate the academic studies published during the pandemic. Pope Francis message in media and social media was important at various times during the pandemic. It would also be a very recent insight into the importance of leadership of Pope Francis.

Another weakness is the absence of a systematic review about the Church use of the media. If we focus on Pope Francis there are several quantitative and qualitative research on his image, pontificate and leadership. It would be desirable for the author to include this type of research.

There is no proposal for a methodology, it would be appropriate to explain it. There is no hypothesis. There are no research questions.

The topic is relevant. It would be appropriate to expand the bibliographical references with more recent and empirical studies on Pope Francis and the media. Cite scientific articles of scientific magazines of Theology, Communication or Mass Media, about topic of this research.

Specific commentaries

The article is clear, relevant, the structure can be expanded.

There are references cited to recent publications. There are few cited references to scientific research articles that delve into the subject of the article. It can be improved.

A hypothesis is not clearly posed. There is no proposed research methodology. This point can be improved.

The absence of scientific research on the subject leads to conclusions that do not deepen.

There are impressions in the writing. Review dates, data from Church documents, etc. Examples:

Line 76 and following

The "Communio et Progressio" was not published during the Second Vatican Council, it was published in 1971.

The article deduces that the "Communio et Progressio" was published during the Council. This is not correct.

It would be appropriate to specify that the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) was convened and inaugurated by John XXIII. Paul VI was at the majority of the Council and concluded it. One of the conciliar decrees was "Inter mirifica", on the media. In my opinion "Inter mirifica" should be mentioned in this article.  In this decree there is an express mandate of the Council to publish a pastoral instruction, it would be the "Communio et Progressio".

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19631204_inter-mirifica_sp.html

Line 212 and following

The author must verify if an Internet pattern has indeed been proclaimed. There are proposals, but no official proclamation. Let us remember that during John Paul II, San Isidro (San Isidoro) was also proposed as the patron of the Internet.

https://www.vaticannews.va/es/santos/04/04/s--isidro--obispo-de-sevilla-y-doctor-de-la-iglesia.html

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Best

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is of great interest in the field of Catholic Church’s communication, offering a valid view on the impact of Pope Francis on the same, or at least, laying the foundations for future reflections. The reconstruction made by the author regarding the Catholic Church's approach to the media is useful for framing how the different popes have entered the wake of a virtuous relations spanning decades, that of the relationship between the media and the Catholic Church. The conclusions reached by the article are also interesting, according to which the communicative ability of Pope Francis is not so much due to a real renewal of the Church's approach and strategies towards communication and the media, as much as to his charismatic Catholic leadership. 

Despite this, there are some few points that in my opinion deserve to be a little deepened.

First of all, the changes observed in the communication of Pope Francis, compared to his predecessors, should be further framed also in the light of the wider media processes that have taken place in recent years. Like other social actors, the Catholic Church - and therefore also the Pope - are entered in a media context characterized by processes of leadership, personalization, and spectacularization which must necessarily be considered in an analysis that studies the media presence of the Pope, also in relation to the rest of his institution. This could help explain why some dynamics are observed over others and, at the same time, why a certain style seems to work better than another.

Secondly, I suggest expanding the reference literature on media logics and personalization/leadership, and on the relationship between the Catholic Church and the media above all in a historical perspective.

Finally, in the final remarks, the central point of the article should be more stressed, that of the charismatic leadership of Pope Francis capable of imprinting a communication style "that works" and in step with the times, against a real renewal of strategies of the Catholic Church in this regard. Instead, I would give less space in the conclusions to all those actions - internal and external - of opposition/dissent against Pope Francis which result in this matter of less interest. This topic could be the object of another research.

Author Response

The article is of great interest in the field of Catholic Church’s communication, offering a valid view on the impact of Pope Francis on the same, or at least, laying the foundations for future reflections. The reconstruction made by the author regarding the Catholic Church's approach to the media is useful for framing how the different popes have entered the wake of a virtuous relations spanning decades, that of the relationship between the media and the Catholic Church. The conclusions reached by the article are also interesting, according to which the communicative ability of Pope Francis is not so much due to a real renewal of the Church's approach and strategies towards communication and the media, as much as to his charismatic Catholic leadership. 

Despite this, there are some few points that in my opinion deserve to be a little deepened.

First of all, the changes observed in the communication of Pope Francis, compared to his predecessors, should be further framed also in the light of the wider media processes that have taken place in recent years. Like other social actors, the Catholic Church - and therefore also the Pope - are entered in a media context characterized by processes of leadership, personalization, and spectacularization which must necessarily be considered in an analysis that studies the media presence of the Pope, also in relation to the rest of his institution. This could help explain why some dynamics are observed over others and, at the same time, why a certain style seems to work better than another.

The bibliography has been integrated: see line 312-313

Secondly, I suggest expanding the reference literature on media logics and personalization/leadership, and on the relationship between the Catholic Church and the media above all in a historical perspective.

The bibliography has been integrated: see lines from 86 to 94

Finally, in the final remarks, the central point of the article should be more stressed, that of the charismatic leadership of Pope Francis capable of imprinting a communication style "that works" and in step with the times, against a real renewal of strategies of the Catholic Church in this regard. Instead, I would give less space in the conclusions to all those actions - internal and external - of opposition/dissent against Pope Francis which result in this matter of less interest. This topic could be the object of another research.

We reinforced the core topic of the paper with some references as recommended by the reviewer, but we decided to leave the “criticisms”’ part to avoid possible accusations from other reviewers of being too much naïve by considering only the supportive positions of this Pontificate.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for improving the article. Thanks for considering my recommendations.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article in its present form is acceptable for publication in the journal Religions.