sk

Here are my suggestions on your approach:
. i' K7 f( h* f' i& t3 I4 [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 c( X: O3 W+ t' x& c# H; Q9 t
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?
& I' U8 d# }0 _, w( U9 H3.        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:$ q4 w* \6 u0 w7 t8 k' h' a0 {5 O( T
8 k7 T: ^* M- n$ s# h
2.        Science advance, and so...

' p% M* L1 Y4 R! a5 ^, j) s' w* ?

8 B6 j$ M! H+ i5 rYour 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.
( Y6 h& E: Z0 g* A2 G# Z0 Q" }% W/ b
[ Last edited by sk on 2006-11-19 at 03:30 PM ]