sk

Here are my suggestions on your approach:1 o9 Y$ ~! b$ v4 ?7 M1 F# g
1.        Your letter portraits a Pope with negative attitude towards changes. Is that fair to the Pope of that time? What did he really do? / j- A. t) O- |: m( R
2.        Science advance, and social injustice are facts. But are they really related to church? Or people just blamed everything to church like HK people blame everything to HK gov’t?
! J* _- W0 C/ t3 {/ k; ~3.        Could he modify the church belief to fit in the changing world- like Mr. Tang of China in the ’80?

sk

Originally posted by 155220 at 2006-11-19 08:24 AM:% e! z$ a+ Y$ ]* U- x

8 Z6 G8 n  F4 ?' m2.        Science advance, and so...

4 @6 Y9 n, B# ~1 c

  c" m2 G: O/ [3 s) N7 gYour reasoning is ok. I just think "To execute one as a warning to a hundred" is a very negative reaction and there are other ways that Pope can view the situation. That's why I suggested point #1, and #3 in post #3.
6 y- ~: |1 @3 k! w6 }+ q
( h8 f9 d; B+ ~! P$ r' `/ Q[ Last edited by sk on 2006-11-19 at 03:30 PM ]