Theoretical and Epistemological Questions for the Study of Contemporary Spirituality in Catholic Italy on Nature, Well-Being, and Mystery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has the advantage of being particularly clear. The questions are raised precisely and appropriately framed within the international scientific debate on the topic.

In the first part, the author deals with the spirituality-religion nexus from a theoretical and epistemological point of view. In the second part, the author presents the results that emerged from an original empirical research about the forms of spirituality in Italy.

The author shows solid expertise in both discussions. The author's attempts to propose classifications of the phenomena studied are particularly appreciable. These classifications increase the level of comprehensibility of the text and allow the results of the analysis to emerge as clearly as possible.

References to scientific literature are adequate and used correctly. The main sociologists of religion who have dealt with the topic are taken into consideration.

Just two suggestions: the first is to insert a reference (even just by naming it) in the abstract to the concept of "frenemies". This concept is particularly useful for summarizing the author's discussion of the first part, and in my opinion it is worth mentioning in the abstract.

The second suggestion is for future research: it would be interesting to put the author's positions (I am referring to those expressed in the first part of the article) in dialogue with those of the founding fathers of the discipline. The article correctly refers to Durkheim through Parsons' studies. I consider this path worthy of further development. This is a suggestion for future studies perhaps dedicated exclusively to this  theoretical and epistemological discussion on the topic.

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for the comments.

I have inserted  in the abstract the concept of "frenemies" which I have coined. This concept is particularly useful for summarizing my discussion of the first part.

I shall consider this second point for future research: "[...] it would be interesting to put the author's positions (I am referring to those expressed in the first part of the article) in dialogue with those of the founding fathers of the discipline. The article correctly refers to Durkheim through Parsons' studies. I consider this path worthy of further development. This is a suggestion for future studies perhaps dedicated exclusively to this  theoretical and epistemological discussion on the topic".

Reviewer 2 Report

I have a few points that need attention. The use of the concept "lived religion" should be consistent; on p. 5 it is called "living religion". This is not accurate. 

The "lived religion" approach is not correctly described in the paper. It indeed wants to compensate for a one-sided top-down view of religion, but not by reversing this position. "Lived religion" is not so much a bottom-up interpretation (p. 6) but rather a focus on how people practice religion within their lifeworld, which can entail any kind of 'subjective', 'doctrinal', 'personal', or 'official' interaction with the sacred. It would be interesting to know whether this would change the applicability of "lived religion" for the analysis in this paper. 

On p. 8 "natural documents" are mentioned, and I was wondering what this term could mean in a, presumably, methodological perspective.

On p. 10 the concept of "dark tourism" is used to describe a touristic mystery tour. Here the author refers to the occult history of the city of Turin. However, "dark tourism" commonly refers to the visiting of places of terror and tragedy (genocide, war, persecution, torture). This calls for an explanation as to why this concept in this text seems to have a different meaning. It is not substantiated by the reference to Foley and Lennon (1999).

Author Response

I'd like to thank this reviewers for the comments.

1. I have corrected "living religion" in "lived religion".
2. In order to answer this point I have added note 2 in which I try to explain how lived religion runs the risk of reductionism because, limiting itself to the study of only the subjective component of lived experience, it neglects other no less important dimensions of religion. At the same time I am aware of the fact that the "lived religion" approach wants to compensate for a one-sided top-down view of religion, but not by reversing this position. It allows to focus on how people practice religion within their lifeworld, which can entail any kind of 'subjective', 'doctrinal', 'personal', or 'official' interaction with the sacred. 
3.  From a methodological point of view, the "natural documents" (Mario Cardano Tecniche di Ricerca Qualitativa, Carocci 2003) are those produced by the study group such as the website, brochures, flyers, histories and publications
4. The concept of "dark tourism" has been reframed in order to use it to refer to the occult history of a city as the author has proposed in her book (mentioned). This use is just inspired by the narratives presented by Foley and Lennon 1996