Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A well-written and densely informative article. The writing is clear, and the evidence presented is comprehensive. However, the structure/focus of the piece needs some major revisions: it is, I think, rather odd that for an article which frames itself in the introduction as an analysis of the homilies of Mgr. Castillo and Mgr. Cipriani that 1) the homilies themselves do not appear until almost the end of the article, and 2) the discussion of the homilies themselves feels, to me, somewhat curtailed and shallow (especially in comparison to the rest of the paper). Furthermore, given the purported focus on the homilies, the link to e.g. the extended discussion of secularisation is not, I feel, sufficiently substantiated.

My suggestion would be that the 'overview' section(s) be shortened or made more concise, in order that more space be made for an extended, in-depth examination of Mgr. Castillo and Mgr. Cipriani's homilies--this is because I understood the examination of the homilies as what the authors meant to be the main scholarly contribution of the article. I would also like to see more actual detail and direct quotations in this discussion--in its current form, the discussion relies rather heavily on the authors' summaries.

In other words, while I think the article is well-written, clear and admirably researched, I also think it is trying to cram too much into one article and thereby losing its focus/direction--and also overriding what is ostensibly meant to be the major scholarly contribution of the piece.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We do agree with your criticism. In this new version, we have analyzed the homilies with much greater precision, quoting them and relating them to other political situations and writings, especially by Mgr. Castillo. In this way, we have reached more interesting conclusions.

You mentioned the possibility of shortening the discussion on secularization. We have decided not to do it because in this new version of our article, our in-depth analysis of the homilies makes use of the commentaries on secularization. The article is not unbalanced anymore.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses the important issue of the influence of the Catholic Church officials on the policy-making of modern states, thus presenting the interplay relationships between the globally managed Church and local political authorities.

As a case study it is based on speeches delivered by two Peruvian archbishops to state authorities on the occasion of Independence Day celebrated annually.

In my opinion the paper is well referenced in literature and properly contextualized theologically (outline of twofold Vaticanum Secundum reception and interpretation), sociologically (post-secluar theories and presentation of religious  affiliation of Peruvians) and politically (one gets superficial insight into the Peruvian political lanscape).

In terms of methodology there should be more data on the methods used by the author(s) to address the topic, and the hypothesis is missing. The paper is narrative rather than exploratory. The point of departure, the supposition should be clearly stated in paragraph 1 and then proven (or not) in further analysis of the homilies delivered by archbishops and the description of state-Church relationships in Peru.

The language of the text seems clear and scholarly, but what is missing here is a bit more information on the Liberation Theology and theology of regeneration. These two concepts are important for analyzing Mgr. Castillo's speeches. In order to get a clear picture of his position, the reader should get a good, not too long, but comprehensive outline of these theological concepts, instead of a long passus on the theology of marriage and family, which is ultimately not so relevant to the analysis of sources undertaken in this paper.

The reader may also be confused about the terms "theocratic times" (eg line 58) and "state-religion of the colonial times" (line 220), as they are not defined or historically grounded, nor are they related to each other in the Peruvian context. Further clarification or simply omission of unused or unnecessary terms is therefore necessary.

Moreover, the term "enchanted country" can be decoded by the fact that Peruvians are more often declared than active Catholics - as can be read in lines 212-218. The Eucharist, as necessary for being a Catholic and an obligatory practice (under the sanction of sin), is not often practiced. So instead of participating in the liturgy of the Eucharist, Peruvians have opted for extra-sacramental rituals, thus constructing an "enchanted religion, reality or country", rather than a conscious and consistent Christian stance. Magic is thus the result of immature religiosity. This should be substantiated or denied somewhere in the article. The Archbishops never addressed this topic in the speeches analysed, as there's no reference to it.

My final comments concern the conclusion. If there was no clear hypothesis, then there are no research results in the conclusion. It is only a summary of the texts analyzed, but there is no evaluation, no projections for the future, no attempt to construct a model that might better fit the sociological and political situation in Peru, no comparison of other countries in a similar situation and the consequences for the development or decline of Christianity in post-secular times in those countries, as well as in Peru. So we know where we are, but we have no idea where to go. I would expect it to be an important conclusion from this case study. Thanks!

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. They have helped us to improve our article. We have rewritten the introduction, stating explicitly our hypothesis and in the same way rewritten our conclusion. We have developed the meaning of the Theology of Liberation, focusing especially on the Theology of Regeneration, an offspring of the Theology of Liberation developed by Mgr. Castillo. We have not curtailed our reflections on marriage, abortion, families… because we think that this theology plays an essential role in the public opinion and that usually, it is not properly understood.  

We have considered your comments on certain expressions such as theocratic times or colonial times, trying to avoid them and/or be more specific.

Finally, you mention concluding with a reflection about the future or what should be done. We think that it should be developed at length in another article (or book). We will do it. However, we have intended to give some orientations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic and research issue of the paper are very interesting and important from the perspective of understanding modern Catholicism. The selection of sermons from both prelates in the context of politics opens up high exploratory potential.

However, the Author does not explain the methodology of the study, and the exploration of the sermons is very superficial. The reader has no opportunity to grasp the theoretical perspective for the study. Moreover, the explanatory aspect of the text analysis is very shallow.

Previous parts of the text suggest that the central research question concerns the dualistic distinction between "progressive" and conservative Catholic theology. However, while reading the paper, one can only suppose this research question. 

Furthermore, the distinction between "progressive" and conservative Catholic theology does not correspond to the very promising title of the paper. The mentioned categories in the title are fully disappointing as they do not find any continuation in the study. Many statements in the text reveal a rather 'journalistic' language, for example:

1. "Church authorities do not pretend to rule the whole human life" (line 33).

2. "Vatican II, which stressed that the Church is not only independent of any specific political system but also should not be tethered to any particular social framework" (115-117): What does "social framework" mean in this context?

3. "Political situations in a still predominantly Catholic country" (122). The paper presents the religious situation in Peru only in terms of self-declaration. What about other characteristics of Catholic attitudes of the population?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is generally well-articulated in English, displaying a commendable command of the language. The author effectively conveys their ideas, and the text flows smoothly, facilitating easy comprehension. Sentence structure and grammar are sound, contributing to the overall readability of the paper.

While the content is clear, providing more explicit details and examples to support key points could strengthen the argument. Elaborating on the methodology employed in the study and offering a more in-depth exploration of the sermons would provide the reader with a more comprehensive understanding of the research process.

Furthermore, the author might consider explicitly stating the central research question early in the paper to provide clarity for the reader. This will help align the reader's expectations with the content and purpose of the study.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We do agree with you on most of them. In this new version, we have analyzed the homilies with much greater precision, quoting them and relating them to other political situations and writings, especially by Mgr. Castillo. We have clearly related them to the two currents present in the Church, “conservative” and “progressive”, showing how those trends appear in a country such as Peru. We have intended to correct our text to reach more coherence (it is one of your criticisms, although you do not use expressly the word coherence).

We have stated our hypothesis and expressed clear conclusions.

We agree with your comments on certain expressions and a “journalistic style”. We have corrected them and also, we have deepened our analysis.

You mention that our expression “a still predominantly Catholic country” corresponds to a self-declared identity. I agree with you, but I think that our discussion of secularization and enchantment and our references give other perspectives.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article's structure has been improved, and the analysis of the homilies is much more detailed.

However, I must disagree with the authors' assertion that their "in-depth analysis of the homilies makes use of the commentaries on secularization". At no point from sections 4-6--the in-depth analysis of the homilies--does the word 'secular' or variations thereof appear. While I understand that this may be implicit, I would encourage the authors to go back and make explicit the connections they are seeking to make between secularisation and the homilies. While the article is less unbalanced before, it still reads a bit like a doctoral thesis--that is, there is a great deal (perhaps too much) of background information and discussion (sections 2-4), which results in a sort of unfocussed feel to the article. As part of this, the article's argument is also not, I think, very strong--while the revised analysis of the homilies does help a great deal, I feel that the article is missing a stronger critical analysis. That is, while the article nicely summarises and compares in detail the homilies of Cipriani and Castillo, it is not entirely clear to me what the article wants to say about that. If it's about secularisation--I think that needs to be made more explicit. The conclusion, for instance, barely touches on secularisation, mentioning it only once. 

See below for a couple other comments:

Lines 60-63, "Abundant literature deals with...For this reason, our research..." For one, while I believe the authors on the abundance of literature, I would at this point expect at least a few citations indicating the breadth of said literature. For another, just because the literature is scarce on a certain topic does not necessarily make something worth analysing--I would ask the authors to make explicit here what exactly is being offered, theoretically or intellectually, by an examination of Peru. I do not say this in a sceptical sense, but that this needs to be made more clear in order to in turn clarify this article's scholarly contribution. Is Peru standing in for the 'global South' at large? Is it something specific about the Peruvian context which adds to existing understandings? If, as these lines suggest, it is about the difference in secularisation between North and South--then why is there no mention or discussion of secularisation in the North as a comparative point?

 

Lines 93-93, about pessimism rising and numbers of Peruvian migrants--citation needed here. Also, it's not clear whether the authors mean Peruvian migrants in terms of people entering Peru from elsewhere, or Peruvians leaving for other countries.

 

Lines 239-244, about the sacraments and sacralisation--these seem like quite sweeping generalisations, for an entire continent!! I would strongly expect at least some citations here too.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comments. I do agree with your criticisms. They are very helpful and thank you for being so precise.

We have been rethinking the orientation of the article, trying, as you suggested, to articulate better the different parts and to put in evidence the main arguments, in particular on the issue of secularization. Our conclusion and a few other passages have been rewritten.

We have also answered your extra comments, correcting our text and incorporating new bibliography.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the paper needs clear description of the method that was applied for the analysis. 

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comment.

I agree with you, the method was not clearly presented.

We have followed your request and dedicated a paragraph to the issue.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made sufficient revisions.