I am not really comfortable where I ended up as I concluded the posting of December 7th. Maybe I was giving Pope Francis a pass by distinguishing between the language of evangelization and the language of theology. Such a distinction is in conflict with my earlier statement in that post: "At some level all language and speech is metaphorical." Furthermore, such a distinction may not be possible or, if possible, it is only a matter of degree. I am reminded of something I read by Karen Armstrong as she defined Logos and Mythos. Logos is the realm of fact and the observable. Mythos is the arena of faith; it is not observable, but it is believable. She then states that any and all discussion of Mythos is possible only by analogy. From this perspective, both the language of evangelization and the language of theology are analogy, metaphor, simile, allegory, and parable.

A central element in the concept that underpins these five words is the use of a known to elucidate an unknown, the use of the concrete to expound upon an abstraction, and the suggestion of additional similarities between things with known or acknowledged similarities. The connections made or suggested in discussions using these tools of language are socially and culturally determined. They may also reflect highly individualistic perceptions of self, views of the environment, and perceptions of the unseen.

Where am I going with this? Where does this take me?

The question that arises for me is: "How does one identify or establish the terminal religious authority, that is, the last word in all things?" To postulate that one has the fullness of the Truth is to claim a status for one's own analogy, metaphor, simile, allegory, or parable and to deny any comparable status for all others. It is no different than an English speaker claiming superiority of language over a Japanese or Ojibwe speaker. One language may be more universal than another, but that does not mean it is better equipped to perform as a tool of communication.

To my knowledge, Pope Francis has not stated that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of the Truth. Others certainly have; others in any numbers of religious traditions. Is it possible to interpret Pope Francis' ecumenical efforts as an acknowledgement of shared truth and an incomplete possession on the part of any and all? Is it possible to speak candidly of such things? Or is it simply too dangerous? Are we fearful that the other will perceive our position as weakness and capitalization? Can't Truth be better served?

Am I once more giving Pope Francis a pass? Or has he chosen a different path than many of his predecessors and contemporaries?