“Gifts of Light”—Chiara Lubich’s Mystical Narrative with Hindus: An Analysis of a Hindu–Christian Dialogue Experience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is interesting, nevertheless it looks like a linear and clear description without any theoretical deepening in relation to phenomenology. The bibliography shows the complete absence oh phenomenological references.  

Author Response

The article is interesting, nevertheless it looks like a linear and clear description without any theoretical deepening in relation to phenomenology. The bibliography shows the complete absence oh phenomenological references.  

I am grateful for the comments offered to my proposed article.

I agree on the point that the article, in fact, does not offer a phenomenological analysis of the dialogical experience which is the object of the study. It is, obviously, a point shared also by the other reviewers. I therefore propose to change the title of the article by eliminating the word 'phenomenological' and I propose a more realistic title in the following terms. "Gifts of light – Chiara Lubich’s Mystical Narrative with Hindus. An Analysis of a Hindu-Christian Dialogue Experience".  In this connection I attempted to meet all other requirements suggested by other reviewers. I try to comply with other suggestions for improvement.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

In this essay, the author offers Chiara Lubich's series of meetings with Hindu scholars and religious leaders as a case study of interreligious dialogue.  On the one hand, I find the quite compelling on its merits, and it is framed well with the discussion of Christianity and colonialism in South Asia in the beginning and the distinctive role of women in interreligious dialogue at the end.  The analysis of the events into four points and three attitudes makes good sense and helps lift the piece beyond the limited context of the exchange with Lubich.

Having said that, it seems to me that the author makes rather a lot of Lubich's uniqueness -- perhaps beyond what is warranted.  The article would make the most sense in connection to other essays also dedicated to Focolare and Lubich in interreligious dialogue.  That is, it contributes directly to an exploration of the uniqueness of _this dialogue_ in the Focolare moment, and is less ground-breaking as a contribution to Hindu-Christian dialogue and study more broadly.  I also appreciated the use of Mitias to connect the case study to wider themes of interreligious dialogue.

I would suggest three areas that might benefit from further revision. First of all, I found it remarkable that there is little or no mention of the rise of Hindu nationalism in Indian politics -- which has significantly complicated Hindu-Christian relations in recent years. Second, I found the discussion of "Paradise 49" somewhat repetitive.  I would consolidate the discussion of this document, it provenance and its format to the first instance and then focus more or less exclusively on how Lubich used it in the dialogue in subsequent references.  Third, one of the strengths of the piece is the incorporation of reactions from Hindu participants, drawn mainly from unpublished transcripts of the meeting.  I would have appreciated more of this content, and it would be especially good if there are any voices that are less or differently appreciative of Lubich.

 

Author Response

In this essay, the author offers Chiara Lubich's series of meetings with Hindu scholars and religious leaders as a case study of interreligious dialogue.  On the one hand, I find the quite compelling on its merits, and it is framed well with the discussion of Christianity and colonialism in South Asia in the beginning and the distinctive role of women in interreligious dialogue at the end.  The analysis of the events into four points and three attitudes makes good sense and helps lift the piece beyond the limited context of the exchange with Lubich.

Having said that, it seems to me that the author makes rather a lot of Lubich's uniqueness -- perhaps beyond what is warranted.  The article would make the most sense in connection to other essays also dedicated to Focolare and Lubich in interreligious dialogue.  That is, it contributes directly to an exploration of the uniqueness of _this dialogue_ in the Focolare moment, and is less ground-breaking as a contribution to Hindu-Christian dialogue and study more broadly.  I also appreciated the use of Mitias to connect the case study to wider themes of interreligious dialogue.

Thank you very much for your careful examination of my paper. I appreciated a great deal your comments.

Keeping in mind your comments and the ones of the other reviewers I tried to eliminate certain words, sentences and parts which may sound exagerations and added other sentences or references (also to other protagonists of Hindu-Christian dialogue of last century) to put this particular dialogical experience more into a balance context. I also added some difficulties met by Lubich in dealing with Hindus and Hinduism during her trip to India.

I would suggest three areas that might benefit from further revision. First of all, I found it remarkable that there is little or no mention of the rise of Hindu nationalism in Indian politics -- which has significantly complicated Hindu-Christian relations in recent years.

I added reference (also for bibliography) to Hindu fundamentalism, which nevertheless, as I explained in the text was not so central, yet, at the time of the events described here (2001-2003).

Second, I found the discussion of "Paradise 49" somewhat repetitive.  I would consolidate the discussion of this document, it provenance and its format to the first instance and then focus more or less exclusively on how Lubich used it in the dialogue in subsequent references. 

I eliminated some parts of it

Third, one of the strengths of the piece is the incorporation of reactions from Hindu participants, drawn mainly from unpublished transcripts of the meeting.  I would have appreciated more of this content, and it would be especially good if there are any voices that are less or differently appreciative of Lubich.

I included two portions of Lubich's personal diary written during her first trip to India which clearly show the difficulties she met in understanding certain aspects of Hinduism and Hindus. In my research I have found no direct negative or problematic answers by the Hindus regarding her sharing of the mystical experience.

Reviewer 3 Report

This article presents an interesting approach to the phenomenon of interreligious dialogue through the phenomenological study of the case of Chiara Lubich, the foundress of the Focolare Movement. It shows how interreligious dialogue constitutes an experience in which identity and otherness do not disappear into something undefined. This is the most interesting point of the paper: it offers a credible and sustainable example of how interreligious dialogue should be conducted. The paper even states a thesis relevant to interreligious dialogue: true orthodoxy is defined not in confrontation with orthopraxis, but in relation to an authentic mystical experience, in this case, that of Chiara Lubich. 

However, although Chiara Lubich's experience may be very relevant and illuminating, it is a particular case that took place in the context of a church confession and that church confession's preconceptions about the nature and aims of interreligious dialogue. In this sense, I believe that the author exaggerates in presenting Lubich's experience as a unique experience by which one can test how the spirit of Christ works effectively with all men and women. There may be other experiences of interreligious dialogue in which such a sapiential-mystical element has been reflected in a clear and concrete way. Even in other religious traditions, different from the Catholic one.The ethical demand of Mahatma Ghandi's experience of God is a proof of this. 

Related to this, I find the author's phenomenological approach to Chiara Lubich's experience problematic. At no point does she/he describe it using phenomenological tools that allow him/her to distance from her and to adopt a more objective perspective on her experience. In that sense, we are faced with a historical-systematic study that takes the foundress´ experience as valid and only underlines her ethical dispositions of interreligious dialogue, among which openness to the religious other is fundamental. From the religious other I always have to learn something. This is the more phenomenological point that I have found in your article. However, I believe that it is also necessary to point out to what extent this mysticism responds to an essential openness of the human being to transcendence. In this sense, I consider that your task is to draw out the sapiential aspects of her experience.

On the other hand,  I think that there are some changes you should add:

1. Lines 10-11: You should remove these lines from the abstract, which do not correspond to an academic work. 

2. In section 4, you you stress women´s special sensitivity to the motions of the Holy Spirit without justifying it either philosophically or theologically. Such justification is relevant if you want to present women as an important agent in interreligious dialogue.   

 

 

Author Response

This article presents an interesting approach to the phenomenon of interreligious dialogue through the phenomenological study of the case of Chiara Lubich, the foundress of the Focolare Movement. It shows how interreligious dialogue constitutes an experience in which identity and otherness do not disappear into something undefined. This is the most interesting point of the paper: it offers a credible and sustainable example of how interreligious dialogue should be conducted. The paper even states a thesis relevant to interreligious dialogue: true orthodoxy is defined not in confrontation with orthopraxis, but in relation to an authentic mystical experience, in this case, that of Chiara Lubich. 

However, although Chiara Lubich's experience may be very relevant and illuminating, it is a particular case that took place in the context of a church confession and that church confession's preconceptions about the nature and aims of interreligious dialogue. In this sense, I believe that the author exaggerates in presenting Lubich's experience as a unique experience by which one can test how the spirit of Christ works effectively with all men and women. There may be other experiences of interreligious dialogue in which such a sapiential-mystical element has been reflected in a clear and concrete way. Even in other religious traditions, different from the Catholic one.The ethical demand of Mahatma Ghandi's experience of God is a proof of this. 

Thank you very much for your comments which I appreciated a great deal.

I tried to follow this suggestion by eliminating some terms. sentences regarding the uniqueness of this experience. In this connection I also added some pages excerpted for her personal diary written during her first trip to India in 2001, from where it emerges a problematic approach Lubich had with Hinduism and hindus in certain aspect. I also referred to the experiences of Le Saux, Monchanin and Griffith. On this I draw your attention of the fact the previous experiences of Catholic dialogue with Hinduism (till then) were mainly personal and individual. Lubich's experience as her spirituality underlines is more communitarian and this emerged clearly in the dialogical experience I describe. But I referred to your suggestion also in the opening lines of my clonclusions as I feel it makes sense.

Related to this, I find the author's phenomenological approach to Chiara Lubich's experience problematic. At no point does she/he describe it using phenomenological tools that allow him/her to distance from her and to adopt a more objective perspective on her experience. In that sense, we are faced with a historical-systematic study that takes the foundress´ experience as valid and only underlines her ethical dispositions of interreligious dialogue, among which openness to the religious other is fundamental. From the religious other I always have to learn something. This is the more phenomenological point that I have found in your article. However, I believe that it is also necessary to point out to what extent this mysticism responds to an essential openness of the human being to transcendence. In this sense, I consider that your task is to draw out the sapiential aspects of her experience.

Your comment is absolutely right. I prefer in this connection to change the title of the article into the following one "Gifts of light – Chiara Lubich’s Mystical Narrative with Hindus. An Analysis of a Hindu-Christian Dialogue Experience". I feel this is more in tune with the study I carried out. To reconsider how to analyze from a phenomenological perspective it may not be possible right now due to pressing commitments for classes and other deadlines.

On the other hand,  I think that there are some changes you should add:

1. Lines 10-11: You should remove these lines from the abstract, which do not correspond to an academic work.

Removed.

2. In section 4, you you stress women´s special sensitivity to the motions of the Holy Spirit without justifying it either philosophically or theologically. Such justification is relevant if you want to present women as an important agent in interreligious dialogue.   

I added something Edit Stein and two French scholar

Reviewer 4 Report

Review: Gifts of light – Chiara Lubich’s Mystical Narrative with Hindus. A Phenomenological Analysis

 

The author’s proposal is clearly an excellent work which – in my opinion – definitely deserves to be published.

In its centre this paper has two main topics, both of them through the life and works of Chiara Lubich (1920-2008) Italian teacher, founder of the Focolare movement. First, the mystic experience, second the interreligious dialogue, in this paper first and foremost between Catholics and Hindus. This paper emphasizes the importance of religion today, and attempts to highlight – in my view, successfully – the potentialities of religion in the 21st century. It is really a thorough work, which shows a profound knowledge of the activity and way of thought of Chiara Lubich, as well as the secondary literature and discussions regarding her works and deeds. The author of the proposal really analyses these matters and questions in an informative and fruitful way and offers certain positive directions for interreligious dialogue and praxis for the future.

I especially liked and appreciated the investigations at the end of the paper regarding the role of women in religion, now and back then, in the time of Chiara Lubich – and the author’s considerations why women would have in the future ever more importance in religion than before. I think that was an especially strong part of this work.

This paper is written in a fluent, very elegant English, has a clear way of thoughts, it is logical, and really a joy to read.

I would like to have, however, certain remarks.

1) It was a little surprising for me to refer to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack in the USA as a sign of the growing importance of religion in the 21st century, at the beginning of the article – while it is a clearly negative example, which is, at least for me, in a clear contrast with the later parts of the proposal, which are mostly about interreligious dialogue and religious tolerance.

This form of religious intolerance and fanatism is at – a little bit – odds with tolerance and dialogue which were later presented as pertaining to the essence of religion.

2) A more important problem is, however, methodological. The author, as s/he claims, wants to offer a phenomenological analysis.

Although, what it is supposed to mean exactly, remains completely unexplained in the article. The word ‘phenomenological’ appears only two times in the proposal: in the title and in the abstract.

Now, the words ‘phenomenology’ and ‘phenomenological’ are used both in Analytic philosophy (in which it refers to certain features of the phenomenal consciousness, as well as the analysis of the latter) and in Continental philosophy, where it refers to the philosophical method and view of Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) and his followers, up to our present days.

As it can be reconstructed from the proposal, the author uses the word rather in the Continental context, that is to say, referring to the phenomenological philosophy of Edmund Husserl, and representatives of the phenomenological movement stemmed from him.

This is also supported by her/his reference to ‘hermeneutics’ and Tobler, which, in this context, clearly refers to the philosophical and theological hermeneutics of the 20th and 21st centuries – so, Dilthey, Heidegger, and then the other hermeneutical achievements in theology (such as Karl Löwith, Rudolf Bultmann, -- and Karl Rahner who was explicitly referred to in the text).

But I would advise to the author to say a little more about phenomenology in the text (which had an enormous effect on religion, theology in the 20th and 21st centuries), and give some specifics how the author claims to use it in her/his investigations on mystical experiences and interreligious dialogue.

Just two further remarks in this regard.

A) Though he was not a phenomenologist, although he endorsed many insights from phenomenological authors, regarding the main topics of the author, Martin Buber could also be interesting for her/him, who had the opinion that God reveals Himself in every particular religion. (I and Though, Der Glaube der Propheten, Eclipse of God).

B) There is a contemporary phenomenologist who analyses mystical experiences from a phenomenological point of view, whom I can also recommend to the author: Anthony Steinbock: Phenomenology and Mysticism: The Verticality of Religious Experience, (2007).

 

To sum up, it is a very good article, I recommend it for publication with minor changes.

 

The reviewer

 

7 March 2023

Author Response

I would like to have, however, certain remarks.

1) It was a little surprising for me to refer to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack in the USA as a sign of the growing importance of religion in the 21st century, at the beginning of the article – while it is a clearly negative example, which is, at least for me, in a clear contrast with the later parts of the proposal, which are mostly about interreligious dialogue and religious tolerance.

Thank you very much for your careful review and wise suggestions.

Regarding the reference of 9/11 is done in order to frame the spirit pervading the world of interreligious dialogue at the time of the preparation of the symposium. It is explained, hopefully in a clear manner, that in those months the idea of clash of civilisation seemed to prevail. The symposium wanted to be an answer to this in a humble way.

This form of religious intolerance and fanatism is at – a little bit – odds with tolerance and dialogue which were later presented as pertaining to the essence of religion.

2) A more important problem is, however, methodological. The author, as s/he claims, wants to offer a phenomenological analysis.

Although, what it is supposed to mean exactly, remains completely unexplained in the article. The word ‘phenomenological’ appears only two times in the proposal: in the title and in the abstract.

Now, the words ‘phenomenology’ and ‘phenomenological’ are used both in Analytic philosophy (in which it refers to certain features of the phenomenal consciousness, as well as the analysis of the latter) and in Continental philosophy, where it refers to the philosophical method and view of Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) and his followers, up to our present days.

As it can be reconstructed from the proposal, the author uses the word rather in the Continental context, that is to say, referring to the phenomenological philosophy of Edmund Husserl, and representatives of the phenomenological movement stemmed from him.

This is also supported by her/his reference to ‘hermeneutics’ and Tobler, which, in this context, clearly refers to the philosophical and theological hermeneutics of the 20th and 21st centuries – so, Dilthey, Heidegger, and then the other hermeneutical achievements in theology (such as Karl Löwith, Rudolf Bultmann, -- and Karl Rahner who was explicitly referred to in the text).

But I would advise to the author to say a little more about phenomenology in the text (which had an enormous effect on religion, theology in the 20th and 21st centuries), and give some specifics how the author claims to use it in her/his investigations on mystical experiences and interreligious dialogue.

Thanks for this apt remark. In fact, I realised myself that I overlook the phenomenological part. I prefer I this stage to frame the title of the article in a more realistic way without referring to phenomenology but only to an analysis of a Hindu-Christian dialogical experience. Time constraint does not allow me to reconsider entirely the article.

Just two further remarks in this regard.

1. A) Though he was not a phenomenologist, although he endorsed many insights from phenomenological authors, regarding the main topics of the author, Martin Buber could also be interesting for her/him, who had the opinion that God reveals Himself in every particular religion. (I and Though, Der Glaube der Propheten, Eclipse of God).
2. B) There is a contemporary phenomenologist who analyses mystical experiences from a phenomenological point of view, whom I can also recommend to the author: Anthony Steinbock: Phenomenology and Mysticism: The Verticality of Religious Experience, (2007).
   
   Thank you for these suggestion. It could be worth, probably in future to attempt a realy phenomenological analysis of the whole experience of dialogue of the Focolare Movement, ivolving the time of Chiara Lubich and the periodmafter her death.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No comment for the author

Reviewer 3 Report

I think that the article is ready to be published in its present form. I consider that the changes that the author has introduced reflects more realistically his/her aims and the specific problematic he was approaching. The more uncertain arguments have been duly justified or nuanced.