Christian Forgiveness and Snape (was Would Harry forgiving )

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 164325

Alla wrote:
>
> Was it his business to know who sold the prophecy to Voldemort,
which prompted Voldemort to kill his parents? I think so.
>
> And I disagree that Harry did not give two knuts about who
> eavesdropper was before he learned about the identity. I found it
> very telling how very much in passing Dumbledore mentioned it, not
> stressing it so to speak, how much eavesdropper was at fault, etc.
>
> I think Harry was just too upset about prophecy to think about
> eavesdropper at first. I think he would have been just as furious no
> matter who eavesdropper was.
>
> So, to answer the question, yes, it is betrayal by Dumbledore IMO.
> Betrayal out probably of best intentions, wishing to protect all
> involved parties but betrayal nevertheless.

Carol responds:
I think that Dumbledore has to balance Snape's right to privacy
against Harry's right to know. He's also considering Harry's state of
mind and level of maturity. I think it *would* have been a mistake to
tell him who the eavesdropper was at the same time he told him about
the Prophecy. And it would be difficult if not impossible to have
Snape teach Harry Occlumency if Harry knew who the eavesdropper was
(which may be why Dumbledore lent Snape his Pensieve--he may well have
thought that it was wise to protect certain memories, or agreed with
Snape that it was wise to protect them). Granted, Dumbledore should
probably have told Harry about the Prophecy sooner, but if he told
Harry about the eavesdropper's identity at the same time, the trust
that he was trying to build between Snape and Harry would be
undermined and the animosity would reach such proportions that Harry
could learn nothing from him, including Potions in his OWL year. And
if Harry spread the word to Ron and Hermione that Snape was the
eavesdropper, Snape's role as spy or double agent could be
compromised, not to mention that Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore could
be severely undermined if Dumbledore violated Snape's trust by
revealing Snape's secret. Would Harry have believed the tale of
Snape's remorse if it had been told to him earlier? I think not. S
Dumbledore has to balance Harry's right to know with his need to know
and consider the consequences of waiting and withholding vs. the
consequences of revealing the information too soon. Whether he waited
too long or not, the timing and manner of the revelation were
extremely unfortunate for everyone involved, making it impossible for
Harry to view Dumbledore's death as anything other than an act of
betrayal by a loyal Voldemort supporter.

Alla wrote:
>
> Not as well fed as I would liked, but not a pampered prince (
> paraphrase). I hear DD excusing himself loud and clear. Thank
> goodness he admitted some of his mistakes, but IMO far from all of
> them.

Carol responds;
Possibly Dumbledore *was* making excuses, but just as he told
McGonnagall in SS/PS, it would not have been good for Harry (even if
his safety could have been guaranteed in some other way) to grow up as
in a world where every child knows his name, famous before he can walk
and talk for something he won't even remember. As DD also says, it
would be enough to turn any boy's head (SS/PS chapter 1.). 

Dumbledore's intentions and rationalizations aside, think of the
consequences if the Dursleys had for some reason chosen to pamper
Harry as they pamper Dudley. Their idea of "love" is worse than their
neglect and (mostly but not entirely psychological) abuse of Harry.
Draco, also pampered, at least by his mother (who sends him sweets
like a second Petunia), is a swaggering bully, a product (like
Bellatrix and Narcissa) of the belief that they're members of
"nature's nobility" by virtue of being purebloods. Of course, Harry is
unrelated to Draco, but he does share quite a few genes with Dudley,
and those genes didn't prevent Dudley from being a hopelessly spoiled,
bullying brat. He also shares genes with James, who (according to
JKR's interviews) was the indulged only son of older parents who may
or may not have been proud of their pureblood heritage but certainly
allowed James the unusual privilege of using an Invisibility Cloak at
Hogwarts. James, also gifted at Quidditch and Transfiguration, seems
to have had a very high opinion of himself and was prone to bullying
behavior, including hexing people in the hallways for annoying him,
according to Lily. Even Sirius Black calls him an "arrogant little
berk." (I'm not saying, BTW, that James is as bad as Dudley, who seems
to have almost no redeeming qualities. I'm pointing out that Harry,
fortunately, is not a second James, despite Snape's opinion to the
contrary.)

If James has what Lily calls a "fat head," thinking he can get away
with obnoxious behavior based on his popularity as a Quidditch player,
his talents, and his parents' indulgence, what could happen to Harry
if he were brought up in the WW as a "pampered little prince," "famous
before he could walk and talk" for something he had no control over,
regarded as the savior of the WW from the age of one? As it is,
wizards bow to him in shops (he doesn't know why). Assuming that he
could safely walk the streets of the WW without being AK'd by a loyal
DE, what would happen to his ego if such bowings were a daily
occurrence? what would prevent him from becoming another "arrogant
little berk," seeing himself as the Chosen One, better than everyone
else, with no need to learn anything about the WW because he was
invincible? surely, it's better for Harry to enter the WW as an
innocent, full of wonder and humility? How can he possibly develop the
compassion he needs to save the WW if he's more popular than Viktor
Krum or Gilderoy Lockhart? Fortunately, regardless of his motives in
doing so, Dumbledore prevents Harry from having that sort of
upbringing (and, of course, also and more importantly, keeps him safe
using the blood protection).

I'm not examining Dumbledore's intentions here, only noting that it
really is for the best, IMO, that Harry was not brought up as a
pampered prince or an infant phenomenon. I doubt that arrogance like
James's would have served Harry well. It might even have been fatal.

Carol, doubting that any other character, whether McGonagall or Sirius
Black or the Weasleys, could have succeeded as well as DD in keeping
Harry safe and fostering his development into the selfless and
courageous person he will have to be to save the WW