A Case for a Eucharistic Approach to Healthcare According to the Social Teachings of the Catholic Church

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is interesting and the aim of the paper worthy of academic exploration. However, the case is not well made. The paper lacks academic rigour, and most of the times reads as a homily or an instruction for healthcare workers. The text contains a high number unsubstantiated claims. Key concepts are not properly defined or their meanings (for example, solidarity) are taken for granted. The style is descriptive ('such and such say this and this', etc) - the presented views are not debated in an engaging way, occassionally they could have been challenged or critiqued or tested. The introduction in its fourth line already contains conclusion. Social teachings or the social thought of the Church are big areas. The focus needs to well stated and justified in order to make the debate manageable. Also, the title of the paper needs to specify that the healthcare context is the US as it is slightly misleading for the reader who (as this reviewer) might be from outside the US context to find out that no other context in the study are mentioned.

The paper requires a proper revision. This can be done by selecting a set of themes or principles that are key to both Catholic healthcare ethics and eucharistic theology or ethics. The themes need to clearly defined; the presentation needs to be more coherent, and the debate more scholarly in order to  convince the reader that Catholic ethics can be reimagined. 

Author Response

Thanks very much for your very helpful review and comments. I went back and rewrote major parts of the manuscript. I tightened the arguments to allow for consistency of thought and flow of arguments. This led to engaging thirty-three more sources. It also led to the expansion of the work from the original 8000 words to over 11500 words. I am grateful again for your helpful review.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an original theological reflection in which the author combines three separate topics: Eucharistic approach, Healthcare and Social Teaching of the Catholic Church. Theological reflection has its own methodology and authoritative sources, different from the research of the exact sciences and their application. The author strictly adheres to a reasonable method. It avoids the common mistake of authors which are reducing reasoning to a philosophical, sociological or psychological level to present theological arguments in a way accessible to a lay audience. Thus, essential theological facts are often lost, without which the proposed theories are not effective in practice.

The author adheres to the theology of the Catholic Church, which is essential for the consistency of argumentation. However, the postulates go beyond the religious practice of the Catholic Church. The main criterion and goal of the argumentation is the common good. By the Eucharistic approach, he understands openness to those who are in health, social and spiritual need. The prototype of the Eucharistic approach is Christ with the gift of himself.

 

An important place in the author's theological argumentation is also occupied by the "reading of the signs of the times" and a prophetic approach. The immediate goal of the study is to place the work of medical staff, the content of their profession, in a deeper theological context. By the very fact of their efforts for health and wellbeing, they apply a Eucharistic approach, put into practice the principles of the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, read the signs of the times and their actions have a prophetic character. With his article, the author contributes to making this implicit action explicit. Awareness of the meaning of human activity – in this case, healthcare – makes the fulfillment of work duties an action corresponding to dignified freedom and offers new strong motivations.

Of course, even if the author focuses explicitly on healthcare, his arguments equally apply to all other human activities in favor of wellbeing, which includes the harmony of physical, mental and spiritual health. Ultimately, the Eucharistic approach should characterize the fundamental interior direction of human life.

In another, the article brings enriching deepening into the religious life of believers. The author emphasizes that in the Eucharist a Christian discovers herself/himself as a member of the community of believers. It offers an interesting definition of the Church as a community of those who are transformed by the Eucharist to give themselves fully to others and thus become followers of Christ. It is the opposite of the dominant individualistic and subjectivist conception of life, while the author refers to individualism as the fragmentation of life that is a consequence of sin.

The author aptly defines integral healing as incorporation into God's life, which restores the original divine-human nature of man.

 

Another observation that needs to be emphasized is the importance of hope in the life of a person, especially a suffering person. Healthcare does not only bring health, but also becomes the strengthening or fulfillment of the patient's hopes.

The vision of reading the signs of the times should also be appreciated as a call for healing. In connection with the social doctrine of the Church, he speaks of "structures of sin", inequality between the poor and the rich, which are the source of many diseases or the cause of their inability to heal. He refers to the conflict between labor and capital as decadent anthropology. The human person is structured to contribute to the flourishing of all. The well-being of others must be placed above the desire to make a profit. Salvation transcends the spiritual realm. The author uses the original neoplasm "otherness".

Only a small comment can be made about the article. Although the author correctly explains in several places what the Eucharistic approach means, in several places the impression may arise that it is meant only in an allegorical sense. To put it simply: the Eucharist means the full gift of oneself in the service of salvation (salus in the meaning of health and of redemption), and so human action for others also means a Eucharistic approach. There is an intrinsic causal connection between the Eucharist, participation of Holy Communion and the Eucharistic action. Not just a resemblance, an analogy. When revising the text, small clarifications are probably enough to avoid such a reductive concept.

In conclusion, it is necessary to once again appreciate the author's creative approach, methodological and argumentative consistency and the great potential of new motivations for the lives and actions of health care workers and not only them.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thanks very much for your very helpful review and comments. I went back and rewrote major parts of the manuscript. I tightened the arguments to allow for consistency of thought and flow of arguments. This led to engaging thirty-three more sources. It also led to the expansion of the work from the original 8000 words to over 11500 words. I am grateful again for your helpful review.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some good reflections on common good and on collective and individualistic approaches. The author should work in that direction. There are a few interesting comments on Africa, they should be developed.

The text has to be rewritten and redesigned.

The author gets involved with different topics but does not manage to articulate them. His/her reflection on “signs of the time” is not clearly related to health care, it is the same with the eucharist.

The way he treats the eucharist does not imply a full reflection on the topic, he/she should have centered his article on the values of Christianity in general and insert the conversation on health care in the catholic social doctrine, with a possible mention of the eucharist.

The way he/ she deals with the social doctrine must also be reworked. The author goes back to its origin but unfortunately, he/ she does not analyze recent encyclical letters that focus on our contemporary society (Fratelli Tutti would be a must). Leon XIII was analyzing a very different type of society. The problem he mentions are not ours.

The author has to decide if he/she wants to rewrite and reorganize arguments or else, he/ she may shorten the article and send it to a different journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have spotted just a few mistakes. Nothing very serious.

Author Response

Thanks very much for your very helpful review and comments. I went back and rewrote major parts of the manuscript. I tightened the arguments to allow for consistency of thought and flow of arguments. This led to engaging thirty-three more sources. It also led to the expansion of the work from the original 8000 words to over 11500 words. I am grateful again for your helpful review.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a much better paper than its previous version - a clearer and more scholarly debate. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has greatly improved his text. The article can now be published. It is a relevant article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A few mistakes. The text has to be reviewed thoroughly.