-->PONE-D-25-62289-->-->Mediating Reconciliation With God: Exploring Divine Forgiveness Experiences During Confession Among Catholic Priests From Four Spanish-Speaking Countries-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Rodríguez-González,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but has yet to fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 02 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

-->If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rafael Galvão de Almeida, PhD.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

5. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Martiño Rodríguez-González, Carmen Callizo, Maria Calatrava, Maria Pilar Martínez-Díaz, Maria Pilar Martínez-Díaz, Richard G. Cowden.

6. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Rodríguez-González, M., Callizo, C., Calatrava, M., Martínez Díaz, M.ª P., Cook, K., & Cowden, R. G.

7. Your abstract cannot contain citations. Please only include citations in the body text of the manuscript, and ensure that they remain in ascending numerical order on first mention.

8. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

9. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: This manuscript presents a carefully conducted qualitative study exploring Catholic priests’ experiences and understandings of divine forgiveness (DF) within sacramental confession. The topic is original, theoretically engaged, and timely within the emerging psychological literature on divine forgiveness.

One of the strongest aspects of the manuscript is the rigorous and sustained engagement with the two central theoretical models (Fincham & May; Cook & Cowden). The authors not only present these models clearly and accurately in the Introduction, but also maintain them as analytic reference points throughout the Results and Discussion. The models are neither superficially cited nor merely decorative; rather, they structure the analytic logic of the study and are revisited critically in light of the data. This theoretical coherence significantly strengthens the manuscript and distinguishes it from purely descriptive qualitative work.

The study is methodologically transparent, the analytic process is clearly described, and the integration with existing theoretical models is thoughtful. The manuscript has clear potential for publication. However, several conceptual and interpretive issues require clarification before it can be considered suitable for publication in a general scientific journal such as PLOS ONE.

My comments focus on strengthening theoretical precision, interpretive restraint, and epistemological clarity.

1. Scope of Theoretical Claims

The manuscript proposes that the confessor may constitute a distinct “fourth vertex” in the relational spirituality model of personal sin. While this is a compelling interpretive insight, the current formulation risks overstating the implications of findings derived from a small and relatively homogeneous sample (N = 10 experienced male priests, predominantly from Spain).

I recommend moderating the strength of this claim. Rather than suggesting structural modification of the model, the argument would be more appropriately framed as a context-specific elaboration within sacramental Catholic settings, and a hypothesis-generating extension requiring further empirical examination. The contribution remains valuable, but the language should reflect its exploratory status.

2. Distinction Between Psychological Description and Theological Normativity

The manuscript generally maintains a psychological lens; however, in several passages—particularly in the Results and Discussion—the wording occasionally moves very close to doctrinal formulation rather than analytic description.

For example: In the Results, statements such as “You can only be certain of God’s forgiveness when the priest… says ‘I absolve you’” are presented with minimal analytic framing. While clearly derived from participant quotations, the surrounding text could more explicitly indicate that this reflects a participant belief structure rather than an ontological claim about the nature of forgiveness. In the Discussion, the description of the confessor as one who “sacramentally identifies with Christ and enacts DF” reads, at points, as a theological assertion rather than as an account of how priests conceptualize their role. A small shift in phrasing (e.g., “is understood by participants as…”) would maintain scientific neutrality. Similarly, when describing absolution as the moment in which the penitent “is reunited with God,” the manuscript could clarify that this is a phenomenological or doctrinally mediated interpretation rather than an empirically demonstrable event.

None of these instances undermine the study. However, because PLOS ONE is a general scientific journal, maintaining a consistently descriptive psychological register—especially when dealing with sacramental theology—would enhance epistemological clarity. The suggested revisions require only slight adjustments in phrasing, not substantive reanalysis.

3. Cultural Framing and Representativeness

Although the study includes participants from four Spanish-speaking countries, six of the ten participants are based in Spain. At several points, the manuscript refers broadly to “Spanish-speaking contexts.” I recommend slightly narrowing this phrasing or explicitly acknowledging the uneven distribution of participants across countries to avoid unintended generalization.

4. Use of AI as Analytic Aid

The transparency regarding the use of ChatGPT as an auxiliary analytic tool is commendable. Given the novelty of AI-assisted qualitative analysis, I suggest slightly expanding the clarification that: AI did not generate primary codes or interpretive structures, all analytic decisions remained with the research team, and the tool was used solely for robustness checks.

This would pre-empt potential methodological concerns.

Overall Evaluation

This is a conceptually strong, theoretically coherent, and methodologically careful qualitative study that meaningfully advances empirical research on divine forgiveness within a sacramental Catholic context. The sustained integration of contemporary theoretical models is particularly noteworthy.

With modest refinements to theoretical framing and epistemological positioning, the manuscript would represent a valuable contribution to the field.

I encourage revision along the lines suggested above.

Reviewer #2: Review of Manuscript PONE-D-25-62289: "Mediating Reconciliation With God: Exploring Divine Forgiveness Experiences During Confession Among Catholic Priests From Four Spanish-Speaking Countries"

Dear Authors:

Thank you for the opportunity the read and review your article entitled "Mediating Reconciliation With God: Exploring Divine Forgiveness Experiences During Confession Among Catholic Priests From Four Spanish-Speaking Countries." I begin by briefly noting some pronounced strengths of the manuscript.

Strengths

1 – The focus on reports of Catholic priests as confessors is quite novel and innovative. I am not Catholic but the authors provide a deep but “outsider friendly” view of the focal phenomenon. I found the piece deeply engaging.

2 – The Referencing and citations were nearly perfect. The manuscript was lucid and clear … and virtually error free. The piece was well-cited, with heavy reliance on very fresh and recent sources (many from the past 5 years or so).

3 – In terms of qualitative methodology, the piece was rigorous and systematic. The depth of the interviews (mean = 74 minutes) is rare these days. I was also impressed with the use of ChatGPT as an “auxiliary aid” (or audit tool).

In the spirit of precision and constructive criticism, I offer the following recommendations that I hope will be helpful.

1 – On p. 4, line 71, you reference “relational spirituality.” I encourage you to cite Annette Mahoney here (in addition to those already cited). She, I believe, was the innovator of this concept.

2 – Page 7, line 149. In APA 7th Style, when multiple references are cited parenthetically at the end of a statement, these references need to alphabetized by the first authors’ last names. For example, when you make a statement and then cite (Ramirez, 1985; Ruiz, 2005; Gomez, 2003) then Gomez needs to go before Ramirez.

3 – An uncited piece you may want to consider in connection with Confession is:

White, T., et al. (2018). Kept together by faith: Confession and forgiveness among American Catholic and Orthodox Christian families. Marriage & Family Review, 54, 677-692. doi:10.1080/01494929.2018.1469573

4 – On p. 10, you mention a sample of “ten Catholic priests” (line 203), but the numbers given on lines 214-215: “Spain – 6, Peru – 1, Chile – 1, and Mexico – 1” only total 9. Please correct this inconsistency.

5 - Please be careful about “naked” paragraphs—meaning paragraphs without a single reference to the scholarly literature. Occasionally, there may be a need for such a paragraph but I would typically avoid going for too long without anchoring and re-anchoring your work in the scholarly literature. Some “naked” paragraphs occur on pages 13-14 (only one cite on these two pages), and for most of p. 32.

6 – Typically, in qualitative work, the “Results” section is instead labeled as “Findings.” (p. 15)

7 – In the Results/Findings section, I would recommend listing/outlining your major Themes up front (after the first paragraph on p. 15), in the spirit of “tell the reader what you are going to tell them.” Additionally, on a related note, I recommend similarly outlining the sub-themes at the beginning of each theme. Both strategies serve as a reader guide and orientation.

8 – I found the narrative selections to be brief but excellent. I also appreciated the decision to italicize the Priests’ quotes for differentiation and clarity. However, on p. 21 (lines 470-471) you forgot to italicize a priest’s quote, I believe.

9 – One slightly jarring feature of the piece is a lack of a transition sentence or two between the major Themes of the Results/Findings section. I recommend adding transitions between Themes 1 and 2, 2 and 3 (p.23), etc. Please help the reader see the connection between the Themes and why you ordered the presentation of the Themes as you did.

10 – Page 36, line 810, needs to be indented.

I wish you the best as you continue your efforts to publish this manuscript, it is an excellent piece and was a pleasure to read.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1:  Yes: Maria Prieto-Ursua

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

Mediating Reconciliation With God: Exploring Divine Forgiveness Experiences During Confession Among Catholic Priests From Four Spanish-Speaking Countries

PONE-D-25-62289R1

Dear Dr. Rodríguez-González,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rafael Galvão de Almeida, PhD.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please add the reviewers in the Acknowledgements section.

Reviewers' comments: