sk

Here are my suggestions on your approach:
* l$ V8 l! E9 e1 X; y  w7 a1.        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 l" c3 K, B6 ]) c" ^! z& O
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?
7 M# x# v* _) N3.        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:$ f7 w; ~6 w6 R

- q1 f, o2 J4 m! W( m) C2.        Science advance, and so...

: s! }6 h$ R% b& Y# U
) |5 |. Y+ i$ B" k$ R! SYour 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.
0 M; @; O/ l$ F& ]1 V' L
+ A. w, h: o5 v* E! t9 q' r+ e6 q[ Last edited by sk on 2006-11-19 at 03:30 PM ]