sk

Here are my suggestions on your approach:# X' N4 l6 j2 D& r
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?
2 g) N3 ~/ S; B2 _: E' l3 ?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?! h% e$ B4 ]: J# i
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:5 A- a; ]2 o% J2 r$ Q
* e& f) S, N2 @
2.        Science advance, and so...

& r, `# X& U2 N+ H% M9 t5 a- u) `

9 B% t3 @9 h4 d! l1 CYour 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 T5 l: C6 f  S- e0 x5 L

" B7 D+ t- l0 W3 f5 E9 I[ Last edited by sk on 2006-11-19 at 03:30 PM ]