Dumbledore and the Prophecy was Re: Sirius and Snape parallels again

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 185078

Montavilla:
> But Dumbledore had heard the whole prophecy and knew that 
> the possible vanquishers was more limited.   Maybe he really
> did think the prophecy was nonsense, but his choice to hire
> Trelawney (for a course he considered absurd) argues against
> that idea.  If the prophecy was nonsense, then there was no
> need to safeguard the prophetess.
> 

Pippin:
There's a need to safeguard her as a human being in danger, whether
she's a prophetess or not. Of course that leads to the question of why
Dumbledore didn't stop Snape or at least wipe his memories. But I
think I can explain. 

I don't think Dumbledore believes in prophecies, in the sense that he
thinks that all  prophecies are meant to come true. But he may believe
that all prophecies  happen for a purpose, whether they come true or
not. IOW, he doesn't believe in prophecies, but he does believe in
Providence.

That would explain a lot about him. If you believe everything happens
for a purpose, there's a tendency to think that if you can see a use
for something, it's meant to be used. Put there a-purpose, as Sam
Gamgee would say.

The prophecy may not be meant to come true, but it didn't happen while
Trelawney was holding a private seance with her sherry bottles or in
the middle of Diagon Alley and a crowd of onlookers. It came when it
could be overheard by Dumbledore. That meant Dumbledore was meant to
hear it. And so, of course, was Snape.

Snape at that time was not even suspected of being a Death Eater and
(forehead slap) Dumbledore couldn't know at that time that he'd
overheard only part of the prophecy. Dumbledore would not think anyone
but Trelawney would be   in immediate danger if Voldemort heard of it.
 Voldemort would wait to see what infant could be marked, in the sense
of taking notice, as his equal. 

Eavesdropping is not a crime. There was no good reason to hold Snape,
or wipe his memories, and therefore Dumbledore could not do so.

The believer in Providence thinks that as long as he acts morally, he
has nothing to fear, even if doing the right thing empowers others to
do wrong -- so it was right for Dumbledore to let Snape go, even
though that meant that Voldemort would  hear about the prophecy. Just
so, it was right for Harry to spare Pettigrew even though it enabled
Pettigrew to escape. Dumbledore had to give Riddle a chance to escape
his past even though he misused it.

 It would seem providential that orphaned Harry's lawful guardians
would be the Dursleys, who had the most power to protect him, and
providential that because they were relatives no one would seriously
question their fitness to raise the child. 

And if the Resurrection Stone for which you have been longing all your
life is suddenly and unexpectedly within your grasp, it would be hard
to resist the feeling that it was *meant* for you to try it. And so it
was, but not, unfortunately by Dumbledore's better instincts.

Does that make sense?

Pippin