sk

Here are my suggestions on your approach:
: p8 g7 @7 A  ]: y5 ]- u- P, k8 t; `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?
5 v( h3 d8 W3 H) ?3 {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?4 v+ h) ]9 E% r5 J4 r! G3 u2 G) C
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:
% L& l/ \0 x1 d# n
/ q" U/ D8 F! @! y2.        Science advance, and so...

* i# H) q& L5 I- g( \5 }- }4 @! Y9 Z9 g3 c/ M
Your 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.% ^& t+ S4 e% d3 g) l" A2 _' A
+ u. f/ G1 ]( h3 _9 W- q% J& n
[ Last edited by sk on 2006-11-19 at 03:30 PM ]