Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Enzo Pace

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Paul Vermeer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper offers a coherent and insightful analysis of Italy’s religious transformation within the framework of post-secularization. The argument is convincing, and the empirical references are accurate and current. The writing is clear, and the theoretical use of Berger, Casanova, and Habermas is well integrated.A few improvements are recommended:

  1. Clarify the main thesis in the abstract and introduction—emphasize earlier that Italy is not post-Catholic but post-secular.

  2. Condense the historical sections (especially on the Fascist and post-war period), as they tend to repeat well-known facts and slightly delay the sociological analysis.

  3. Add a brief comparative note situating Italy within the broader European context of secularization and pluralization (e.g., Spain, France).

  4. Consider a sharper concluding paragraph summarizing the implications of post-secularization for Church–state relations and future social cohesion.

These are minor revisions; the paper’s theoretical consistency and stylistic clarity make it a strong contribution to the field.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments and suggestions.

I expanded section 7 and clarified the difference between diversity within Catholicism (an endogenous factor) and exogenous religious diversity due to immigration

I am grateful for the corrections to the handful of errors you found in the text (you can use the attached Word file).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

It was a pleasure to read your paper; it shows cross-disciplinary engagement and clearly argued position on the changing socio-religious landscape in Italy that is well supported by (secondary) empirical data. 

I have two main points to make and three small edits to consider:

  1. In Introduction, in the last sentence (lines 30-31), there is a claim that "Italy cannot really be described as a post-Catholic country, but rather as a post-secular one". Arguments presented in your paper do not support that claim. On the contrary, in Conclusion, you clearly state that Italy was never a secular state and therefore cannot be now called 'post-secular'. I would suggest that that last sentence in Introduction is changed to reflect better the content of the paper. Italy is differently religious now partly due to proliferation of migrant religions and partly to socio-historical processes. While Italy is not 'post-Catholic', it is not post-secular either. 
  2. Theory of neo-secularisation could be very helpful in this paper because it bridges modernisation claims behind 'traditional' secularisation theory and new forms of being religious that you claim is also happening in Italy. If nothing else, you could refer to neo-secularisation theory in your Conclusion to name more precisely what is going in Italy ("it describes a process of socio-cultural change that is taking place in a specific society (Italy) and in a limited historical phase; the key feature of this change is the individualisation of the choice to believe or not to believe, which prevails over believing by tradition and obedience to a religious system called the Catholic Church" - this is exactly the strength of neo-secularisation theory to contextualise religious change within specific geographic location at a specific level). 
  3. In Introduction, claim is made that there are two parts to the paper. However, the paper starts from socio-historical account and moves to the indicators of secularisation in Italian society to conclude with relevance of migrant religions. I suggest to add a sentence that there are three inter-related aspects of the paper rather than two. 
  4. 'z' is used in 'secularization' in 'Key words' while 's' is used in 'secularisation' throughout the paper.
  5. line 379 Table 1 - 'totale' should be replaced by 'total'.

Best regards

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and remarks.

1. I have rewritten the introduction, clarifying in the approach to the Italian puzzle in what sense we can speak of both a secularised society and a semi-secular and potentially post-secular state and, finally, of minority Catholicism.
3. I have rewritten the four-part presentation of the article, with interconnected parts, as you suggested.
2. I prefer the paradigm of complexity (Edgar Morin) to that of neo-secularisation. I have explained why I think it works better from both an epistemological and methodological point of view.
4. I have standardised secularisation as secularisation
5. I have corrected total (in Table 1) to total

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript The Sociocultural Change Under the Sacred Canopy in Italy is very interesting and well written and I would certainly recommend publication of the this manuscript in Religions. However, I do think that the author should address one important issue before it can actually be published. This issue concerns the conceptualization of secularization. To me it is not always very clear what is meant by secularization in this manuscript. Since there is no consensus among sociologists of religion about the meaning of secularization, the author should clarify his or her own position in this respect. This becomes even more urgent, because the author seems to conceptualize secularization in different ways. On the one hand, the author considers the loss of religious authority as the key indicator of secularization. This is exemplified by his brief historical sketch of the diminishing influence of the Catholic church on Italian society, politics and individuals/citizens. On the other hand, the author also talks about religious individualization and the transformation of conventional, institutional religion into privatized spirituality. In this respect, s/he even refers to present-day Italian society as a post-secular society. But if one understands the loss of religious authority to be the core of secularization, considering privatized religion, or individual spirituality, as a counter indication of secularization – and talk of a post-secular society – is very strange and conceptually inconsistent. For example, for a well-known defender of secularization theory, like Steve Bruce, the rise of individual spirituality is not a refutation of secularization theory, but a confirmation! For him, the rise of individual spirituality is a perfect illustration of the loss of religious authority; i.e. of secularization! I am not saying that Bruce is right in this respect or that the author should accept Bruce’s theoretical insights. But I am saying that the author should clarify his/her position more in detail and engage more with secularization theory. To do this I would recommend to make use of Dobbelaere’s distinction of secularization at the macro, meso and micro level and to explain more clearly how secularization differs at these distinct levels. It would be helpful to do this at the start of the manuscript, at least before the second section (Roman and Catholic Issues. A Call to History) and also incorporate elements of the seventh section, especially the insights on the two processes regarding post-secularity, in such a introductory, theoretical section.

In sum, I would certainly recommend publication of this manuscript on secularization in Italy, which is already an interesting topic in its own right, but the manuscript could be strengthened by adding a theoretical section on secularization and secularization theory at the beginning of the manuscript right after the introduction.

Author Response

Thank you for your interesting reflections. 

Thank you for your interesting critical reflections.
I tried to explain my point of view on secularisation in the introduction, referring, as you suggested, to the classic work by Karel Dobbelaere (plus the lecture he gave at the ISSR Conference in 2013 and the many discussions I was fortunate enough to have with him until a few years ago).
 My approach to solving the Italian puzzle – as I explain in the new version of the introduction – is based on Edgar Morin's paradigm of complexity. I explain the reasons for my choice in the introduction.