Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

To the Editor:

Re “Pope Tells Clergy That Remarried Catholics and Their Children Are Still Welcome” (news article, Aug. 6):

Pope Francis is in a difficult spot as he tries to highlight compassion over canon law and possibly seek the admission of remarried Catholics to reception of the Eucharist without annulment. His apparent style of governance is to emphasize collegiality and seek concurrence rather than make pronouncements.

He will promote discussion but trust the Spirit—through the bishops—to make significant changes to age-old teachings. This is encouraging to a generation of Catholics more accustomed to pontifical fiat.

Sometimes I wonder if there is some parallel to Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s approach, which called for glasnost and resulted ultimately in the undoing of the Soviet Union. A little openness can go a long way, and who knows what change it will generate.

DAVID E. PASINSKI

Fayetteville, N.Y.

The writer is a former priest.

Here.

Here.

To the Editor:

I am an elementary school teacher. I love working with children. I considered my vocation constructive, honorable and a necessary part of building our democracy. While I would like to be paid better, I have taught for 20 years despite being poorly paid. And while I would like to be able to use the bathroom when I need it and have uninterrupted lunch breaks, lack thereof has not prompted me to seek another career. It’s not even being the scapegoat for so many social problems or continually set up to fail that make me want to leave. I can, however, tell you why I don’t want to teach anymore.

I am unable to see individual children as data points as required by the corporate reform movement. We are being forced to subject students to an inordinate number of tests that do not enhance their learning or childhood. These tests provide profit for corporations, and the results are used to ruin teachers. Children are collateral damage.

I do not like my professional value to be determined in a profoundly unfair manner through standardized tests and through observations by people whom I do not respect or trust.

I know I have made a difference for thousands of children. It breaks my heart to seek employment outside of what I consider my calling, but I cannot stay in a system that is motivated by money, not by what’s best for kids.

URSULA ANN KELLY

Corrales, N.M.

Here.

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “Best Way to Save Africa’s Lions? Hunt Them, Some Experts Say” (front page, Aug. 11): Future generations will look back at trophy hunting as one of the great miscalculations in the complex effort to protect some of nature’s most treasured species.

Even as we are cracking down on poaching and illegal trafficking of wildlife, we make an exception for trophy hunting in the name of conservation. The mixed message this sends to Africans and the rest of the consuming world is obvious: Killing protected wildlife is illegal, but there are exceptions if one has the ability to pay.

Endangered animals can best be protected by a clear policy with no loopholes: The killing of endangered animals for personal gain is repugnant, whether it be for elephant tusks, rhino horns, tiger parts or lion heads to hang on walls of the wealthy.

BRAD GOLDBERG

President, Animal Welfare Trust

Mamaroneck, N.Y.

Seven-Inning Felix (14-7) got bombed today by the last-place Boston Red Sox. In just two and one-third innings (seven outs), he gave up 10 runs, which increases his earned-run average to 3.65. It took him 59 pitches to get those seven outs. At that rate, it would have taken him 227.5 pitches to get 27 outs. No wonder he can't pitch a complete game! He is amazingly inefficient. Peasant Felix is on track for 18.7 victories. His team is mired in fourth place. So much for the $24.8 million he earns this season. If he had any self-respect, he'd return at least half of his salary to the team, or at least donate it to charity. The man is devoid of leadership qualities. Depending on how he feels on a given day, he could either pitch a perfect game or head for the showers after two innings.

The New York Times does a hatchet job on Amazon.com. I can think of the following reasons:

1. The founder of Amazon.com, Jeff Bezos, owns the Washington Post, which is a major East Coast rival of the Times.
2. The Times is run by women and effeminate men. Amazon.com represents competitiveness, ambitiousness, and combativeness, which are masculine traits.
3. The Times hates entrepreneurs.
4. The bleeding-heart do-gooders at the Times think that every business corporation, every occupation, every profession, every university, and even the country generally, can be operated like a family, in which "mine" and "thine" have no place.

If you don't like the way Amazon.com does things, then (1) you shouldn't apply for a job there, and (2) you shouldn't purchase its products. I hope Amazon.com defends itself from this vicious attack by the Times.

Few activities in human life are more precious and rewarding than those associated with the nurturing of families, the fostering of an environment which enables one's children to fulfil their potentialities and reach the maximum excellence of which they are capable.

(John Cottingham, "The Ethical Credentials of Partiality," The Presidential Address, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, n.s., 98 [1997-98]: 1-21, at 10)