From Domination to Dialogue: Theological Transformations in Catholic–Indigenous Relations in Latin America

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting article on the relationship between Indigenous religions/cultures and Catholic Christianity. The topic is still relatively little studied and therefore the article can be considered topical. However, in its current form, the manuscript does not meet the basic requirements for a scholarly article. I read the manuscript as a scholar of religion and I understand that the requirements and style of writing often differ between scholarship of religion and theological disciplines. Nevertheless, in this article there are problems in all the areas composing an academic article. In what follows, I will briefly indicate the main problems with the article.

Aims: I find the aims for the qualititative analysis carried out in the manuscript a bit misplaced. It is possible, of course, in qualitative analysis to "prove and disprove of theories and hypothesis", but I do not think that should be the aim in this particular article. The authors should rethink the aims of the article.

Data: It is not clear to the reader what the data examined in the article are. The abstract indicates that these may be documents related to the conferences of the Latin American Episcopal Council (CELAM), the Synod for the Amazon (2019), and the teachings of Pope Francis. Nevertheless, in the text itself these are not introduced in any way to the reader as data. I suggest that the authors select certain documents for the analysis and carry out a systematic analysis of the selected documents.

Methods: The method of analysis seems to be document analysis, which the authors choose to call comparative analysis of literature. However, the method is not referenced and the authors fail to explain how the analysis has been conducted in the research, i.e. how the documents chosen for research has been analysed in practice. How have the findings been made? I'd suggest that the authors explicitly describe and reference their analytical methods and their use in the study.

Theory: The article does not have a clear theoretical framework. The authors discuss the problems with the concept of religion and therefore choose to employ concepts such as spirituality, belif, sacred, divinities, and rites instead. However, these concepts are taken for granted - there is no discussion on or references to the scholarly discussions around these concepts. I suggest that the authors familiarize themselves with the literature on Indigenous religions (see e.g. Björn Ola Tafjord's work) and use that as (a part of) the theoretical framework.

Analysis: The analysis is not systematically carried out. It does not become clear at what basis the examples are selected and what parts of the documents (and what documents) are being analysed. The analytical observations and arguments are not backed up by data or properly justified. The arguments therefore are mostly opinions rather than scholarly arguments. Also, the discussion in section 3, even if meant to be background information, is too general.

Referencing: It is not clear for the reader where the citations at the beginning of the sections are taken from - no references are given.

In general, it is my opinion that this manuscript is currently a religiously biased essay rather than a scholarly article and needs thorough reworking before it can considered for publishing. The topic is important and I hope the authors continue to work on it.

Author Response

Comment 1 - Aims: I find the aims for the qualititative analysis carried out in the manuscript a bit misplaced. It is possible, of course, in qualitative analysis to "prove and disprove of theories and hypothesis", but I do not think that should be the aim in this particular article. The authors should rethink the aims of the article.

Response 1 – I appreciate important observations, and I rewrote a lot of things in the article. The changes are in red for you to easily identify.
About the objectives of the article and I made an important change to its objective: “to analyze the relationship between the Christian faith and the spiritual traditions of the indigenous peoples of Latin America, seeking to identify elements that make it possible to trace paths of dialogue and mutual cooperation”. To be precise, I did a new title to article and I rewrote the entire summary. 
I consider that this analysis is adequately presented in the text, when it shows elements of the indigenous spiritual traditions, explores their meaning, and relates them to the Christian faith, using the comparative method. I eliminated the previous proposal to “prove and disprove theories and hypotheses”.

COMMENT 2 - Data: It is not clear to the reader what the data examined in the article are. The abstract indicates that these may be documents related to the conferences of the Latin American Episcopal Council (CELAM), the Synod for the Amazon (2019), and the teachings of Pope Francis. Nevertheless, in the text itself these are not introduced in any way to the reader as data. I suggest that the authors select certain documents for the analysis and carry out a systematic analysis of the selected documents.

Response – The “data” examined in the article are the elements that characterize indigenous spiritualities. They appear throughout the text, but the article focuses on item 5 when dealing with “From a co-responsible social interaction to a spiritual reciprocity”. Here it analyzes Living religiously (item 5.1); The holistic perspective (item 5.2); . Being a/in community (item 5.3); . Creatural fraternity (item 5.4) and The Mystique of Good Living and the Land Without Evil (item 5.5).
And the documents of the Latin American Episcopal Council, the Synod for the Amazon and the teachings of Pope Francis are reference sources for reading these data from the perspective of the Christian faith lived in Latin America. Throughout the article, the article seeks to show how in these references it is possible to find what the church thinks about indigenous cultures and spiritualities and how it relates to them. As an example, see p. 4 how the Instrumentum laboris of the Synod for the Amazon characterizes indigenous spiritualities (ISLA 121), and how the bishops position themselves on it (quotation from CELAM 1992, 17).

COMMENT 3 - Methods: The method of analysis seems to be document analysis, which the authors choose to call comparative analysis of literature. However, the method is not referenced and the authors fail to explain how the analysis has been conducted in the research, i.e. how the documents chosen for research has been analysed in practice. How have the findings been made? I'd suggest that the authors explicitly describe and reference their analytical methods and their use in the study.

Response - The intention of the article is not to “systematically analyze these documents,” but to use them as sources to understand the relationship between indigenous spiritualities and the Christian faith in the Catholic conception. The way in which the source bibliography is used is to extract from them the position of the church on indigenous peoples, what is said about these peoples, their cultures and their spiritualities. Here the main objective of the article is achieved: to show that in these sources we can understand the purpose of the church in Latin America: it understands the situation of indigenous peoples and stands in solidarity with them (with indigenous peoples’ problems, promotes their rights and values, respects and dialogues with their spiritual traditions (see the various quotes from CELAM on pg. 5; see pgs. 7–9: “4.3 Broadening paths of dialogue and cooperation with indigenous cultures and spiritualities”). Pgs. 9–15 show various elements of interaction and reciprocity, “comparing”: the importance of Living religiously for Christians and indigenous people (pg. 10–11); the holistic perspective for these two ways of being and believing (pg. 11–12); Being a/in community (pg. 12–13); Creatural fraternity (pg. 13) and the relationship of the Mystique of Good Living and the Land Without Evil, with the hope of the Kingdom of God in the Christian faith, a life of peace in plenitude, life in “abundance” proposed by Christ in John 10:10.

This is how the use of the “comparative method” in research becomes concrete. 

comment 4 - Response – I appreciate the valuable observation of the reviewer. This made me abandon concepts such as belief and rite in the research, and use mainly the expressions “spiritual traditions” or “indigenous spirituality”. The basis for this position is on pg. 5, with the use of authors such as Da Mota; Wolff; Pacheco; Blanco; Mota Cunha. Therefore, it was not necessary to use Björn Ola Tafjord – but it was a valuable suggestion from the reviewer, thank you.

COMMENT 5 - Theory: The article does not have a clear theoretical framework. The authors discuss the problems with the concept of religion and therefore choose to employ concepts such as spirituality, belif, sacred, divinities, and rites instead. However, these concepts are taken for granted - there is no discussion on or references to the scholarly discussions around these concepts. I suggest that the authors familiarize themselves with the literature on Indigenous religions (see e.g. Björn Ola Tafjord's work) and use that as (a part of) the theoretical framework.

Response – Thank you. But I think this question has already been answered in Comment 3. The extensive use of the Church’s teachings, CELAM documents, and researchers on indigenous peoples shows that my analysis is well-founded. So these are not just personal or general opinions on the subject.

COMMENT 6 - Analysis and referencing The analysis is not systematically carried out. It does not become clear at what basis the examples are selected and what parts of the documents (and what documents) are being analysed. The analytical observations and arguments are not backed up by data or properly justified. The arguments therefore are mostly opinions rather than scholarly arguments. Also, the discussion in section 3, even if meant to be background information, is too general.

Response - I appreciate this observation, it is very valuable. In the first version of the article, these quotes were intended only to introduce what was discussed throughout the section. But in this version I have eliminated these quotes, as I consider that it is not necessary to make this introduction.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article deals with a pertinent and current topic. It reflects on interreligious dialogue in Latin American Catholic circles, which emerged from efforts to contextualize the reception of the Second Vatican Council. Since that Council, it has taken plural paths in the hermeneutics of faith. However, a consistent dialogue with the spiritual traditions of indigenous peoples, whose rites, myths and customs are often disregarded, has not yet been developed. The research method is comparative, and the qualitative analysis of the bibliography allows us to understand the relationship between the church and Latin American Indigenous spiritualities. 

This is a current theoretical discussion, contextual and relevant to the present time.

Author Response

COMMENT - 

This article deals with a pertinent and current topic. It reflects on interreligious dialogue in Latin American Catholic circles, which emerged from efforts to contextualize the reception of the Second Vatican Council. Since that Council, it has taken plural paths in the hermeneutics of faith. However, a consistent dialogue with the spiritual traditions of indigenous peoples, whose rites, myths and customs are often disregarded, has not yet been developed. The research method is comparative, and the qualitative analysis of the bibliography allows us to understand the relationship between the church and Latin American Indigenous spiritualities. 

This is a current theoretical discussion, contextual and relevant to the present time.

Response - Response - I appreciate important observations, and I rewrote a lot of things in the article. The changes are in red for you to easily identify. I believe that you understood the article's proposal well in terms of its objectives, method, structure and conclusions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article has thorough documentation of church sources and a good understanding of the worldview and struggles of indigenous peoples. 

I think the article could be much improved with some clarity from the abstract about what the article is doing.  The article is not “verifying” the church’s approach to dialogue. This implies that you are simply evaluating what the church is doing. More accurately the article does two things, first attempts to evaluate the church’s more recent approaches and statements regarding Indigenous peoples, AND proposes (constructively) and makes explicit some approaches promoted by the authors. 

The scope of the paper should be more explicit to be an evaluation of approaches in the last century - perhaps no earlier than the 19th century. Historical evaluations made for example on page 5 where a few voices of Indigenous defenders are listed are neither comprehensive nor would it be accurate to state these voices had no effect. There were many tensions and debates about the nature of the implementation of the colonial project and the treatment of indigenous peoples, and tensions about secular involvement in missions. Further, it would not be accurate to collapse the church’s agenda with the colonial agenda as done throughout the paper. For example, the seminal bull Sublimis Deus (1537) on the evangelization of the Indians (which some historians see as contributing to human rights) and the Propaganda Fide (1622) which takes back control of the missionary effort and promotes preserving customs and cultures where possible. 

There is confusion in the article between dialogue and missionary outreach, and sometimes collapsing the two.  Mission involves invitation to the faith which presumably assumes that Christianity has something to give that other traditions do not - implying some form of “superiority” (or at least some contribution to faith), and dialogue, which has a different agenda of understanding and cooperation.  You use the word superiority derogatorily in the conclusion, but I think the second collapses invitation with dialogue and these need to be separated. They are not the same thing, and the Vatican often has different writings that are appropriate for mission and appropriate for dialogue. 

It would also be good to clarify when you say dialogue do you mean dialogue with indigenous cultures that have not adopted Christianity? Or indigenous cultures in general? There's no mention of the synod on the Amazon that took place with Saint Francis in 2020. Many issues emerged, such as the Pachamama (a fertility goddess) symbol brought as a gift to Rome, which created much debate. Mention of the synod would help the paper be less theoretical and have some on-the-ground examples. 

I believe the intention of overstating the church’s perceived negative approach to dialogue in the past in the paper is to help the argument. You are saying that there needs to be better dialogue with indigenous peoples. You don't have to overstate or even address things before the 19th century. You can simply start the evaluation in the 20th century. 

I think it also be good to keep the scope of the 20th century because dialogue as you are proposing is something that did not exist as such before the 20th century. 

“Theology of religions,” is mentioned on page 5.  This implies that you are promoting pluralism, but that is not stated explicitly, I’m gathering that from the sources listed. This needs to be clarified.  There is no acknowledgment here that the church’s official position since Vatican II has consistently been inclusivist. 

There are many quotes and supporting documents in the article. This shows in fact that the Catholic church is already engaging in some of the dialogue that is promoted here. This I think is supportive of the position of the article. At the same time, the article should be explicit on where the church is (and give the church credit for that) and needs to go further as you see it should. 

Author Response

COMMENT 1 - I think the article could be much improved with some clarity from the abstract about what the article is doing.  The article is not “verifying” the church’s approach to dialogue. This implies that you are simply evaluating what the church is doing. More accurately the article does two things, first attempts to evaluate the church’s more recent approaches and statements regarding Indigenous peoples, AND proposes (constructively) and makes explicit some approaches promoted by the authors. 

Response – I appreciate the valuable observation of the reviewer of the research. In view of this, I did a new title to article and I rewrote the entire summary. In fact, rewrote a lot of things in the article. The changes are in red for you to easily identify.
You can see the objective is precise: to “analyze” how the Church in Latin America relates to indigenous peoples, their cultures and religions (pg. 1). I tried to do this throughout the text, showing how the church understands the situation of indigenous peoples and stands in solidarity with them, seeking to promote their rights and values, respect and dialogue with their spiritual traditions (see the various citations from CELAM on pg. 5; see pgs. 7–9: “4.3 Broadening paths of dialogue and cooperation with indigenous cultures and spiritualities”). On pgs. 9–15, it shows various elements of interaction and reciprocity, “comparing”: the importance of Living religiously for Christians and indigenous people (pg. 10–11); the holistic perspective for these two ways of being and believing (pg. 11–12); Being a/in community (pg. 12–13); Creatural fraternity (pg. 13) and the relationship of the Mystique of Good Living and the Land Without Evil, with the hope of the Kingdom of God in the Christian faith, a life of peace in plenitude, life in “abundance” proposed by Christ in John 10:10.

COMMENT 2 - The scope of the paper should be more explicit to be an evaluation of approaches in the last century - perhaps no earlier than the 19th century. Historical evaluations made for example on page 5 where a few voices of Indigenous defenders are listed are neither comprehensive nor would it be accurate to state these voices had no effect. There were many tensions and debates about the nature of the implementation of the colonial project and the treatment of indigenous peoples, and tensions about secular involvement in missions. Further, it would not be accurate to collapse the church’s agenda with the colonial agenda as done throughout the paper. For example, the seminal bull Sublimis Deus (1537) on the evangelization of the Indians (which some historians see as contributing to human rights) and the Propaganda Fide (1622) which takes back control of the missionary effort and promotes preserving customs and cultures where possible. 

Answer – Thank you. Yes, before Vatican II, the church declared its solidarity with indigenous peoples. And in this version I cite Sublimis Deus, which the reviewer indicates (pg. 6). But even today, in Latin America, we feel that the church is struggling to make bold statements regarding indigenous peoples (and also those of African origin). This is a “legacy” from the time of colonization, when the voice of the church was more in tune with colonialist culture.

It is with the CELAM Conferences that the Latin American church has a clear voice of solidarity with indigenous peoples, as a reception of Vatican II (pg. 5; 6 and following). That is why I believe it is important to begin in the period before the Second Vatican Council to show the importance of this change in the church after Vatican II, when the church took a more courageous stance of solidarity and dialogue with indigenous peoples, their cultures and their spiritualities. I try to show this throughout the text. See: pg. 4, the Instrument Laboris of the Synod for the Amazon recognizes valuable aspects of indigenous spiritualities; pg. 7-9, item 4.3: Broadening paths of dialogue and cooperation with indigenous cultures and spiritualities. This stance is what makes it possible to perceive in the church today the possibility of social interaction and spiritual reciprocity, analyzed in “item 5”, starting on pg. 9.

COMMENT 3 - There is confusion in the article between dialogue and missionary outreach, and sometimes collapsing the two.  Mission involves invitation to the faith which presumably assumes that Christianity has something to give that other traditions do not - implying some form of “superiority” (or at least some contribution to faith), and dialogue, which has a different agenda of understanding and cooperation.  You use the word superiority derogatorily in the conclusion, but I think the second collapses invitation with dialogue and these need to be separated. They are not the same thing, and the Vatican often has different writings that are appropriate for mission and appropriate for dialogue. 

Response – The reviewer is right that I emphasize the word dialogue. This is the stance I seek to demonstrate in the church today with indigenous peoples (pg. 7-9). The fact is that in many church environments today there is still an understanding of mission from a conversionist perspective and an understanding of the church with an air of superiority in relation to religions. In Latin America, this leads to ignoring and marginalizing indigenous peoples, and the bishops denounce this (pg. 7). This triumphalist and exclusivist vision is still maintained today. Pope Francis criticizes this “self-referential” church.
And I seek to show that since Vatican II, dialogue has been an important guiding element of the mission. On pg. 7 I make it clear that mission and dialogue are not mutually exclusive; they go hand in hand in the proclamation and witness of the Gospel.

COMMENT 4 - 

It would also be good to clarify when you say dialogue do you mean dialogue with indigenous cultures that have not adopted Christianity? Or indigenous cultures in general? There's no mention of the synod on the Amazon that took place with Saint Francis in 2020. Many issues emerged, such as the Pachamama (a fertility goddess) symbol brought as a gift to Rome, which created much debate. Mention of the synod would help the paper be less theoretical and have some on-the-ground examples. 

I believe the intention of overstating the church’s perceived negative approach to dialogue in the past in the paper is to help the argument. You are saying that there needs to be better dialogue with indigenous peoples. You don't have to overstate or even address things before the 19th century. You can simply start the evaluation in the 20th century. 

I think it also be good to keep the scope of the 20th century because dialogue as you are proposing is something that did not exist as such before the 20th century. 

Response – I appreciate the reviewer’s comment. And, at least in part, I think I already answered it in the response to comments 2 and 4. But he is right that I want to strengthen the proposal for dialogue in the 21st century, because in Latin America before this century, dialogue was practically nonexistent, or very timid.
And I make several references to the Synod for the Amazon throughout the text. The article is full of citations to the Synod for the Amazon. See the various citations with “DAS” – Document of the Synod for the Amazon; “AQm” – Querida Amazônia; “ILSA” – Instrumentum laboris for the Synod for the Amazon, among others.

COMMENT 5 - “Theology of religions,” is mentioned on page 5.  This implies that you are promoting pluralism, but that is not stated explicitly, I’m gathering that from the sources listed. This needs to be clarified.  There is no acknowledgment here that the church’s official position since Vatican II has consistently been inclusivist.

Answer – On page 8 I mention the “theology of religions” as a “horizon” and “support” for the proposal for dialogue today, and it can be very useful for the church in relating to indigenous spiritual traditions. In the article, I do not position myself in favor of pluralism, nor of other perspectives of the theology of religions. I simply want to say that it can be a favorable element in the encounter between the Christian faith and indigenous spiritualities.

COMMENT 6 - There are many quotes and supporting documents in the article. This shows in fact that the Catholic church is already engaging in some of the dialogue that is promoted here. This I think is supportive of the position of the article. At the same time, the article should be explicit on where the church is (and give the church credit for that) and needs to go further as you see it should. 

Response – Thank you for this comment. I say “where the church is” at the present time, citing the documents that guide the mission of the church today. And “where to go”? In some passages, I ask whether the church is doing enough in dialogue with indigenous peoples...; and an intuition to advance in the reading of the spiritual values of indigenous peoples beyond the thesis of “seeds” of the Word, seeing these values already as “fruits” of the grace of Christ – pg. 2 and 7.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper wants to describe the interreligious dialogue in Latin America of the Catholic Church and the Indigenous peoples. It attempts this by looking back at the earliest encounter of the Catholic Church to the Latin American countries. The encounter with the indigenous people had different outcomes that continues to affect the way religion is practiced today. The paper does not however provide a clear definition of the indigenous people it seems to lump all groups into one. It does use certain words from different groups but fails to describe the group themselves. The use of indigenous people just brings everyone under a generic label that has so many different meanings and interpretations.

The paper does no provide a historical description of the earliest encounters between the different groups. This would help to understand the current relationships between these groups. There are too many generalizations and assumptions made which can be difficult to follow for a reader not well versed in this history. It would be better to give some historical background, describe the indigenous people, and give reasons for the Church's presence. 

The process in this paper is quite anachronistic and it does not provide a clear understanding of interreligious dialogue, comparative religious traditions or even a knowledge of traditional indigenous religions. The process needs to be reevaluated. The use of resources from one period of history to substantiate a point in another is an example of being anachronistic. The resources should be appropriately used. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The use of the word dialog and dialogue needs to be examined. They have to different usage and in very different fields of study. There are too many repetitions of statements which does not make a point. It just shows how the author is not certain of the path in which they are proceeding. 

Author Response

COMMENT 1 - The paper wants to describe the interreligious dialogue in Latin America of the Catholic Church and the Indigenous peoples. It attempts this by looking back at the earliest encounter of the Catholic Church to the Latin American countries. The encounter with the indigenous people had different outcomes that continues to affect the way religion is practiced today. The paper does not however provide a clear definition of the indigenous people it seems to lump all groups into one. It does use certain words from different groups but fails to describe the group themselves. The use of indigenous people just brings everyone under a generic label that has so many different meanings and interpretations.

Response – I appreciate important observations, and I rewrote a lot of things in the article. The changes are in red for you to easily identify.
The reviewer is right, I dare not “define” what indigenous peoples are. I show on pg 3-4 that the variety of indigenous peoples in Latin America does not allow them to be classified into a single definition. Therefore, I make it clear on pg. 1 that I show characteristics of these peoples that can be found more easily in practically all of them, in their cultures as well as in their spiritual traditions (see item 3, on pgs. 3 and 4). And I focused the research on some of these specific characteristics: the importance of Living religiously (pg. 10-11); the holistic perspective in understanding reality (pg. 11-12); Being a/in community (pg. 12-13); Creatural fraternity (pg. 13) and the Mystique of Good Living and the Land Without Evil.

COMMENT 2 - The paper does no provide a historical description of the earliest encounters between the different groups. This would help to understand the current relationships between these groups. There are too many generalizations and assumptions made which can be difficult to follow for a reader not well versed in this history. It would be better to give some historical background, describe the indigenous people, and give reasons for the Church's presence. 

Response: Thank you for the valuable observation. In fact, there is no historical description because it would go beyond the objective of the article. But the research presents different contexts of the relations between the church and indigenous peoples: before the Second Vatican Council (pg. 6) and after Vatican II (pg. 6-7).

COMMENT 3 - The process in this paper is quite anachronistic and it does not provide a clear understanding of interreligious dialogue, comparative religious traditions or even a knowledge of traditional indigenous religions. The process needs to be reevaluated. The use of resources from one period of history to substantiate a point in another is an example of being anachronistic. The resources should be appropriately used. 

Response – Thank you for your comment. The article does not intend to define interreligious dialogue, but I present the understanding that the bishops of Latin America have of interreligious dialogue (pg 7), the importance of "entering into a fruitful exchange with the religious and cultural manifestations that characterize our pluralistic world today" (Celam 1979, 1114). The bishops do not define dialogue, but situate it in the respectful interaction with other forms of belief. Specifically, it is the attitude of recognizing the values of the spiritual traditions of indigenous peoples, their specific characteristics, promoting coexistence, solidarity and cooperation in the affirmation of their rights.
Regarding the understanding of indigenous peoples, I hope I have already responded in Comment 1.
I understand that there is no anachronism in the research. When speaking of the relationship between the church and indigenous peoples before Vatican II, I show elements that characterize that specific time (conversionist perspective before Vatican II, p. 6); and the same when I situate the church in the post-Vatican II period, with new positions in relation to indigenous peoples (interaction, dialogue, cooperation – pg. 7 to the end of the article). It is important to clarify that I use different periods precisely to show how the church in Latin America matured the proposal for dialogue with indigenous peoples over time.

COMMENT 4 - The use of the word dialog and dialogue needs to be examined. They have to different usage and in very different fields of study. There are too many repetitions of statements which does not make a point. It just shows how the author is not certain of the path in which they are proceeding. 

Response – Sorry, I didn’t quite understand that observation. In my case, this is more a language problem than an uncertainty about the research path. But in this second version of the text, the person who translated from Portuguese sometimes used “dialog” and other times “dialogue” (see pages 1, 2, 7, etc.). I think it’s a grammatical choice, right?

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see commented pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

see commented pdf. 

Author Response

I appreciate important observations, and I rewrote a lot of things in the article. The changes are in red for you to easily identify.
COMMENT 1 - On considering the importance of the expression "seeds of the Word"
Response: yes, this thesis is certainly one of the great advances in understanding and dialoguing with cultures. Since the patristic period, it has been affirmed in an attempt to value different cultures, and today we can also extend it to religions.
However, there is something more to be said than that: where the Word acts, it is fulfilling the divine project, saving. And if it saves, then it is already a "mature" action of God's grace. In this sense, the expression seed of the Word is valued, but seeing it germinating, growing, bearing fruit.
Please see: pg 2 and 7
COMMENT 2 – Aboout the concept “dialogue” or “dialog”
Response: Sorry, I didn’t quite understand that observation. In my case, this is more a language problem than an uncertainty about the research path. But in this second version of the text, the person who translated from Portuguese sometimes used “dialog” and other times “dialogue” (see pages 1, 2, 7, etc.). I think it’s a grammatical choice, right?
COMMENT 2 – About use the author Aiban Wagua.
Response: I agree. Please, see pg. 10
COMMENT 3 – Soul not correlate “anima” in English
Response: I agree and did cancel this link.
And about the meaning of  Inti to the Bolivian Aymara, the reference says: male deity correlated to the sun, father figure; and about Pachamama: it says Andean deity correlated to the earth, fertility, the mother, the feminine),
Please see pg. 11
COMMENT 4 – About “Being a/in community”
I agree. Thanks.
COMMENT 5 – About the expression “creatural fraternity” – pg. 13
It is a neologism, perhaps, but very applicable to what we are talking about the importance of humans feeling that they belong to creation.
Naturally, it is a metaphorical language. But it reinforces the meaning of what Saint Francis of Assisi says about "Brother Sun, Sister Moon", or the teaching of Pope Francis in Laudato Si "Everything is interconnected".

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author addresses directly the comments and suggestions. One area that can be addressed explicitly is the contrast between Christian and indigenous people. Yet many indigenous people ARE Christian (see first part of comment 4). This would benefit being clarified in the paper. 

Thank you for your contributions and research in this article. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

It is true that many indigenous people in Latin America are Christians. But to talk about them we would have to deal with another topic, what we call "indigenous pastoral care" or "indigenous Christian theology", which I intend to address in another study, not in this article. In any case, thank you for your suggestion.

I tried to take into account all other suggestions you made about my article. I am now sending you the revised version. I hope the text is ok, but if you still need anything, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version is much better than the previous. The questions and concerns raised have been addressed which makes the article more coherent and stronger. The citations and resources that are new support the thesis of the article. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I appreciated your suggestions about my article. And I tried to take into account all the suggestions you made about my article. I am now sending you the revised version. I hope the text is ok, but if you still need anything, please don't hesitate to let me know.