sk

Here are my suggestions on your approach:, F/ F) O+ t  ~. ?4 l
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? & _' `# H8 n/ y3 }
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?( `9 d& b4 p, u( Q( p
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:
2 J- v6 N; M9 n4 E! O) h# T$ d' N1 v% W
2.        Science advance, and so...

! ?: U# m: e8 \( B6 |
6 ~$ j1 J8 g' m7 ~) N) d8 ~; i3 x4 nYour 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., n% ]0 L8 K; O! K& T; N( L4 w

  [+ Y8 L. Y: E9 m: {9 v) Q, |5 Q[ Last edited by sk on 2006-11-19 at 03:30 PM ]