Hi Nick —
Thomas, do you feel at all uncomfortable about discussing the Holy Spirit in a context that features posts like...
It is something I have considered often.
There is a saying, "Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine" (Matthew 7:6). More than once I have wondered, is that what I am doing here? What is the point?
It really doesn't matter what I believe ... what matters is why I believe what I believe.
By the responses received, rarely, if ever, is anyone interested in why Catholicism says what it says, why it believes in what it does, or how that position was arrived at. At best I can hope for a reasoned contrary argument — as indeed we have enjoyed.
Failing that, then generally the response is to pose a personal opinion against 2,000 years of theological insight and philosophical development. Such an argument is invalid in any meaningful scientific inquiry or discussion, so I fail to see why it should be accepted as theologically valid.
And on occasion, the voice of the anti-Catholic or anti-religious agenda as it manifests in various quarters. Propagandist, invariably founded on ignorance and/or error, if not actual antagonism.
So why bother? It seems markedly apparent, by their absence, that those of a traditional disposition do not post here, indeed are not made to feel welcome here. IO is primarily for the self-informed, it is the platform of opinion, not of orthodoxy.
So why do I stay?
Training. As a theologian-in-formation I know that my vocation will take me to one of two places: the cloister or the classroom.
If the latter, I'll be tucked away in some monastic library, poring over old texts ... bringing to light (I hope) a lost jewel of antiquity. If the former, I'll be in discussion with the world, as it were, and here is as good a place as any to test one's methods.
And, I have to admit, a certain tendency or disposition towards the robust, if not the combative (add some Gaelic genes into the mix). I don't believe in 'gentle Jesus meek and mild', anymore than I believe in the Jesus of 'anything goes' or the 'Jesus of my own invention'.
And maybe ... who knows ... there might just open the smallest chink, through which the light begins to shine (ever the optimist).
Do you ever feel as though you are psychologically losing something?
Not at all. Far more testing, psychologically, is theology itself.
I would go so far as to say, from what little I know, that was Weil's problem. She mistook her emotional response as something spiritual. The lesson of 'get over yourself, and get on with it', seems applicable, and is generally a good test of the spirit ... or as my old boss used to say, 'less trap, more action'.
What makes theology tough is not what you come to understand about the divine nature, but what you come to understand about human nature. What makes it tougher is accepting that God accepts that, indeed He accounts for it, and that we should accept that, too.
There is a key there, to the simplicity of the saint.
Thomas