sk

Here are my suggestions on your approach:5 \" Q$ h$ |8 Q
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 `8 O7 ]8 [; g/ \2 P+ z4 e2.        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?, O' u+ i: s) {8 E! X4 o; ]% Z
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:% e% S! v: z/ D% e# g
; T# J5 ]7 H) Z/ V# L
2.        Science advance, and so...

+ A+ b2 z2 ~5 S% N4 j
- J0 b  R1 E0 c: \0 W( M
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.
3 v/ ~+ A, s# p% }4 z  t
/ x+ N% F$ M! s/ P9 y5 {[ Last edited by sk on 2006-11-19 at 03:30 PM ]