sk

Here are my suggestions on your approach:9 J! T. Y7 D7 S# ^5 D" z  b0 |
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? * j  d5 ~- P3 ?9 Z
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?1 t: }1 c5 p+ I4 Y
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:
; R6 i" o, |; T6 Q7 S2 W! G$ i: P" J1 I7 h
2.        Science advance, and so...

/ r$ O4 V- j* Y) B0 @3 z9 N, R1 d6 {8 H& N% N1 e3 l
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.% n" c) b3 e, O4 s9 }' ?# |

) w- ]; u8 S) P3 L# }, n[ Last edited by sk on 2006-11-19 at 03:30 PM ]