sk

Here are my suggestions on your approach:- R2 o1 Q7 i+ ^* q0 u, }
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?
# y) R+ M5 k7 t: h2.        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?
( P; P! r( B# g+ ^/ U* l3.        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:
5 r& r2 W. R1 U7 a5 V' @# e! {; G/ R2 Y  Y. S  x- F4 j2 ?
2.        Science advance, and so...

# [+ T9 @4 ~) ^$ {6 L
) Y- S; L: r& _6 TYour 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.
( M+ K, b7 [: k' }# P* S% @. ~8 B, [" U: b" q
[ Last edited by sk on 2006-11-19 at 03:30 PM ]