Spirit or Ghost? When I attended a Latin Mass during my time in the northeast I became used to calling the third person of the Blessed Trinity the Holy Ghost. This seemed anachronistic at the time given the use of the term Holy Spirit in my Jesuit high school and parish primary school. As I read editions of, for instance, St. Augustine or the Cappadocian Fathers that were translated prior to the 1960s I became more and more used to saying Holy Ghost even if no one else around me did.
A few years progressed and I found myself in a Greek Catholic Church and using Holy Spirit again, as they do for their liturgies. Indeed even the Russian and Greek Orthodox in the United States, who can have a strong preference for archaic language (cf. using the James Bible for readings) translate the name of the third person of the Trinity as Holy Spirit. So what gives?
In the 1960s the American bishops made a concerted effort to adopt the phrase Holy Spirit. Editions of the Scriptures, hand missals, and translations of ecclesiastical writers all began to use Holy Spirit. I recall Msgr. Fulton Sheen, in one talk given around 1962, remarking "the Holy Spirit—or Holy Ghost, they are the same...."
The Rad Trad does see some merit in the use of the term Holy Ghost, as it is odd and might force others to think of the Paraclete as something other than a sensation or a mystical feeling, which is what spirit often means today. Regardless, I use Spirit now to avoid sounding too 1950s. Some might, I think, might say Ghost as part of an effort to preserve pre-Conciliar American Catholic culture. Yet I found in England an equal proportion of traditionalists say Holy Ghost as in America.
Other languages do not have this strange problem!