sk

Here are my suggestions on your approach:  {$ r% U* S# e9 s. o0 r1 c
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?
4 c9 a4 X0 J0 M6 e! j5 r" N2.        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?. b* _. z4 M1 B6 ?0 l* m
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:! L4 d9 V6 s0 P5 q2 K$ k" l

6 M* o! h4 E& k0 U/ ~/ U2.        Science advance, and so...

) |% S& N3 W% c& p

6 y" u$ t2 G( ]+ }) P, L1 C/ @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.
3 Y! S- H3 n' Z. `4 a8 R5 [; b% o  D% i
[ Last edited by sk on 2006-11-19 at 03:30 PM ]