Lewis often said that obscure language or jargon was a sure sign that you didn't thoroughly understand what you were talking about and were taking refuge in "shop talk". He recommended that anybody writing something technical (whether textual analysis or theology) put it in "plain English" before publication.
What's interesting is that his personal, plain-spoken tone is evidence even in his "day job" writings - he wrote the volume of the Oxford History of English Literature on the 16th Century (excluding drama, which had a volume of its own), and it's quite engaging, very friendly and chatty, even though the subject is obscure. I mean, who has read David Lyndsay's The Monarche lately? although if you do (or if you read Lewis' tome) you'll find out where the title of That Hideous Strength came from!
I like John Paul II in that he took deep subjects and presented them to us with enough for all. What I mean is everyone could read it. How far you wanted to dive into it was left for the individual.
In other words I am not a contemplative person. I would love to be, really and I do have the ability to do it, I just don't have the time. So I want it where I can "get it" and use it.
When I first read "Confessions", I was blown away. It seemed so contemporary. I mean contemporary in the sense that I could relate to what he was saying.
There was a thread on here some time back that was about Christopher Columbus and it was fascinating. I came away with a lot. But the thing that struck me most was that in this coming time of trouble, "we" have been there before. The Muslims occupied Spain for 700 years, but they were eventually expelled. Now to modern man they will say so what? But I don't know I find a comfort in that. The gates of Hell did not prevail then and they will not prevail now.
I would read a couple of pages and then ponder them before I picked up the book again.