sk

Here are my suggestions on your approach:3 ?) ~* \8 P, h# X
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?
4 g( E1 U( S  j) g2 v" u) x* D2.        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?
" u$ N1 T) v) o  R3.        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:
6 F: A! d3 r$ ?( A5 S6 @% g4 o4 V9 r% T2 j' n
2.        Science advance, and so...

: W- a1 b  Q# J1 g9 F& O5 @3 y) l0 p
+ ^. Y/ h9 ?0 k3 k
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.
2 Q2 g# E0 i8 G5 m6 N5 C$ W) N( G- r6 v; \& Y! H6 g" j5 p
[ Last edited by sk on 2006-11-19 at 03:30 PM ]