sk

Here are my suggestions on your approach:$ j9 G# a+ z" D
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? 1 [# d+ {, D/ k* o8 T' W
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 }# I8 {: R+ y: \3 @/ P7 S
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:0 Y6 l( r  x" n; h" }; b

+ j+ J' |; W9 U6 s4 z- e2.        Science advance, and so...

; N+ ~! ?% q* |6 v) ], t8 R; j: s. g& d4 A% a! y% x
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./ K8 K# A8 }2 ^" Z
. D$ P  Z( j$ a( j$ f- |
[ Last edited by sk on 2006-11-19 at 03:30 PM ]