Quite right Jeremy. The longer I live, the more important forgiveness seems to me. I have been in one or two situations where if I hadn’t found a way to forgive someone, tragedy would have resulted.
Forgiveness is a matter for the private domain. The aggrieved individuals can forgive the offender or not.
But forgiveness of private misbehaviour is meaningless In the public domain.
One can appreciate The Prince’s efforts to make amends but at the same time feel that he’s not worthy to officiate in public functions.
So basically Prince Andrew is the wrong hook to hang the issue of forgiveness on.
I don’t know much about Prince Andrew. Like all second sons in that family (and particularly with that father) he was destined for the armed forces. Same with Prince Harry; they both served their country in war, demonstrating duty, loyalty and courage. Does that count for nothing these days?
Being in the navy was likely the cause of his marriage breaking up – an occupational hazard for MPs, fly-in fly-out miners and others who are called away from home for long periods. Following his navy career he was given a role in selling British-made arms overseas – his princely glamour and military background made him successful at it, which translated as jobs for British workers. So, quite a good, long record.
His ‘failure’ seems to have been to be, for a period, a social acquaintance of his friend’s husband. In that circle he may or may not have had sex with a 17 year-old girl who appears to have been happy to trade sex for the glamorous lifestyle. We’ll never know. But we might remember that it is he who is without sin that can throw the first stone.
I am with Etty. I think you make very light of the problem of his association with Geoffrey Epstein, as if he were simply the victim of wokish humbug. There are plenty of men who go unpunished for this kind of seediness and no doubt women. But this doesn’t make it ok. The Epstein story is one of abuse of power. It matters not whether Epstein’s teenage targets were complicit or not. It is a failure of judgement and upbringing that he didn’t seem to realise this association would destroy his reputation. Reputations can be rebuilt…but only slowly and from the bottom up…and without the help of powerful people.
I don’t care that much about his association with Epstein. Former Presidents of the U.S. were happy to be entertained by Epstein, he was very well connected. If Andrew himself wasn’t doing anything wrong, and we don’t know that he did, I guess he thought it was just ‘modern life’ – Epstein wanted the cache of associating with Andrew and Andrew wanted financial tips from Epstein. Lord knows who he associated with when he was pushing weapons sales in the middle east
I disagree with you about whether it matters that the 17 year old girl was complicit or not. If she hadn’t been complicit her allegation would be very serious.
What I wanted to suggest is that people aren’t all good or all bad. Andrew has quite a few ticks on the right side of the ledger, I think we can cope with the fact that he has faults. Overall I don’t see that he deserves to be ‘cancelled’, the faults can be forgiven.
teenagers think they are grown up but they are not. we know that Epstein exploited this for his own ends and no one at the heart of his operation was concerned with their welfare. this whole question is about degrees of association. like the devil, Epstein knew how to tempt, manipulate and exploit. I don’t think it is a new idea that if you get embroiled in something like this it will harm your reputation and if you are a public figure you may have to resign your positions. it is not just about the specific accusations, which will never be tested in law.
as to the former US presidents, if they stand for office again, the American public will make their own judgements and decide how much they care.
“cancellation” is not about public opinion in the true sense of the word. it is more about well organised groups of activists successfully intimidating public institutions and employers. the Duke of York is a public figure and it is my impression he fell foul of public opinion. his TV interview did not help. I don’t understand the rush and I don’t think it is a good tactic for the circumstances.
Well, we agree that he fell foul of public opinion, but my guess is that it’s not because of a slight association with Epstein, or a possible liaison with a 17 year old. Who cares? What you hear all the time is it’s because he’s ‘arrogant’. That’s why he deserves to be taken down a peg or two, or three. Arrogance is an unattractive trait, but it runs in the family – his father? his aunt? – and he was brought up in that old royal way. You see it in Charles, Anne and Andrew, but not in the next generation – all their children are fine. We can choose to see Andrew’s arrogance in the way we now think of the arrogance of his elder relatives – as kind of an amusing historical feature, soon to fade away!
Didn’t Prince Andrew’s accuser step back when she knew she was going to be subpoenaed and have her assertions questioned in court?
On the basis of being innocent until proved guilty would seem to be relevant here.
Tom Lewis
1 year ago
I didn’t see the word ‘penitence’ used in the article. Surely, if ‘forgiveness’ is one side of a coin, then ‘penitence’ is the other.
Because this is what SJWs do ! The famous “narcissism of small differences” of the Left (ref Judean People’s Front, the appalling pile-on on J K Rowling, …).
geoffrey cox
1 year ago
All very nice, but behind Welby’s comment seems to lie the assumption that it’s any business of the mob and the media to ‘forgive’ Prince Andrew, who has not been found guilty of any crime. Instead he has been pronounced ‘disgraced’ – which has nothing to do with ‘justice’, but from which there is no way back and which leaves no room for forgiveness.
It can be! And why should the church decide your fate if you wish to end it?
Having lost many to depression and then the suicide, I think I may know one or two things about the syndrome.
I think that would be exactly the wrong thing to do. Do you recommend the same for all who have been convicted by the gutter press and social media? Perhaps consider the case of John Profumo, disgraced for something he did do, but then led an exemplary life and was later awarded an OBE – that seems to me to be a far better way to go.
Profumo showed signs of contrition from the start, unlike for example the simply dreadful Judge Denning.
Fortunately he has got the “get out of gaol free” card,
the dreaded COVID-19!
He is, however, guilty of bringing the Royal family and the country into disrepute (and bringing the Royal family into disrepute really takes some doing). Remember, he is on the public payroll and he only had one job – representing his country. Which he failed to do. You may be happy with that. I’m not. And the majority of the country isn’t either.
That’s without considering the man’s arrogance and entitlement (others have remarked on this and I know from reliable acquantainces this is true). And his appalling judgement in continuing to associate with Jeffrey Epstein. And the fact that he got his mum to pay off someone he never met. All he had to do was prove his innocence in court. He chose not to do so.
His job – his only job for which he was very well paid – was to represent his country with decency and dignity. He failed. He’s finally been fired. Good riddance.
We can talk about “forgiveness” when he shows some contrition. I’m not holding my breath.
Albireo Double
1 year ago
The archbishop of Canterbury is not unpopular because he preaches forgiveness. He is unpopular because he has shamelessly politicised the position that he holds, and thus brought it into disrepute.
His God may forgive him for this. But his congregations are not. They are melting away like mist in the sun. Hardly a surprise.
Last edited 1 year ago by Albireo Double
Brooke Walford
1 year ago
Such an illuminating take on justice. So necessary for our accusatory times.
Jeff Butcher
1 year ago
I agree with what Giles says here about forgiveness but the Archbishop of Canterbury is as much a political figure as a spiritual one and I think one does well to view what he says with a healthy dose of scepticism.
Christians can get confused about forgiveness if they don’t pay close attention.
Matthew 18:15-17 sets out conditions for forgiveness and what happens if those are not fulfilled. Moreover, these conditions are applied solely to ‘brethren’, and the failure to meet them results in such a co-religionist being treated like a ‘heathen’.
Given the historical context in which Jesus’s words are spoken, what is ‘heathen’ likely to mean? This passage goes no further than implying that forgiveness involves not rendering evil for evil. Nor are the conditions for forgiveness and the consequences of failure to meet them ‘messy’. Jesus described the workings of the world in saying that as you give, so shall you get back.
In his book, The Lion’s World, Rowan Williams liked to think that God’s judgement and the forgiveness following would be a private matter between the sinner and God. Matthew 18 provides evidence to the contrary, as do other pronouncements of Jesus (such as the men of Nineveh acting as witnesses for the prosecution).
As has been pointed out by others, the modish fashion for making an apology (such as for historical wrongs) allows the one making the apology to gain the kudos of making it while at the same time heaping opprobrium on the people of the past. The Archbishop of Canterbury prostrated himself on a visit to India for a wrong committed under the Raj. Yet Christianity is supposed to be about confessing one’s own sins, not those of others. That’s an act that gets no kudos.
As for post-Apartheid South Africa, it’s not uncommon to find young white South Africans who have left that country because, they say, they have suffered discrimination in attempting to gain employment. Have they been rendered evil for evil?
patrick macaskie
1 year ago
I think people were angry because he needs more time in the sin bin and he needs to show humility. He looked like the cat that had got the cream when he appeared next to the queen in her Landau for his father’s memorial. there was even a bit of “up yours” as swooshed passed his surprised siblings. it is only God that can see into his soul. the rest of us would prefer to see nothing of him for 2 years; other than with a woolly hat, doling out free meals to the homeless. it is true there is a group, who shall not be named, who have no capacity to forgive and will never forgive; because vanity and pride have eaten them up (and perhaps, like the prince, they can’t see it in themselves). the arch bish yet again harmed his message by choosing the wrong pretext.
The Queen didn’t go to Prince Philip’s memorial service in a “landau”. Prince Andrew had every right to be there – more so than anyone else who was there bar the family. I am also quite sure that none of the family were taken by surprise even if the public were – the Queen doesn’t operate that way. In her frail state and at such a public event she needed someone at her side who understood her needs. Prince Andrew fitted the bill perfectly as he spends more time with her than anyone else since he stepped back from all public duties. I rarely agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury but he had this issue dead right.
John Stone
1 year ago
If we are going to have a Royal Family then it is not wrong to be concerned about its morality. There will be people who love the genre irrespective, but what we should really be worried about – as future allegedly constitutional monarchs – is the espousal by Prince Charles and Prince William of the WEF and the Great Reset, by which they might retain their own great wealth while the populace – happy or not – if they are still alive will by 2030 own nothing. The Queen talks of a great future but for whom? Perhaps an appropriate – and more important – discussion is the British state being completely out of control, with the Royals in the advanced guard. Did not the Queen go off piste to support “poor Mr Hancock”, prime advocate of Klaus Schwab’s 4th Industrial Revolution, two days before he had to go because of a right Royal sexual indiscretion? Techno-feudalism beckons and our masters are not necessarily our betters.
Last edited 1 year ago by John Stone
Rafi Stern
1 year ago
Forgiveness requires repentance. Then it is mandated. If not, then as the Jewish sages said “כל שנעשה רחמן על האכזרים, לסוף נעשה אכזר על רחמנים” – “all those who are merciful to the cruel, end up being cruel to the merciful” (Rabbi Eliezer in Midrash Tanhuma on the portion of Metzora’).
The problem with “forgiving” Prince Andrew is that he hasn’t admitted he’s done anything wrong, far less repented his sins. The Truth & Reconciliation commission was at least an attempt to acknowledge the past. Similarly, BLM will remain obsessed with “justice” until there is some real acknowledgement (from the nation) of injustice.
Paul Halsall
1 year ago
Absolutely spot on. For some years now I have realised that the most controversial line in the Creed is that we believe in the “forgiveness of sins.”
Andy O'Gorman
1 year ago
God forgives, i don’t! Well not often and it really depends on whom, and for what!
John Waldsax
1 year ago
It does nothing for Unheard’s credibilty when you can not even get Giles’s workplace details right. Especially as editorial staff are meant to be media aware and yet missed the publication of multiple news stories reporting Gile’s installation at St Anne’s, Kew, weeks ago.
Peter B
1 year ago
If Prince Andrew wants “forgiveness”, does he not first need to “repent” ? I’m not a believer, but that’s my understanding of now it’s supposed to work. And I hadn’t noticed any trace of repentance from Prince Andrew yet.
In which case, Welby is not “doing his job”. Which is no surprise at all to me. He doesn’t even seem to understand what his job actually is.
Marilyn Cornelison
1 year ago
dfvsdf
Maureen Finucane
1 year ago
Everything about the Royal Family is very calculated. They only care about themselves and hanging onto power. Andrew is only repentant because he was found out.
It is nice to read an article from Giles Fraser to which I can give unqualified assent.
just a shame it started with “The Archbishop of Canterbury has the worst job in the world because …… “
This is plainly nonsense ….
I think he was writing metaphorically!
Figuratively rather than metaphorically, I would say.
Quite right Jeremy. The longer I live, the more important forgiveness seems to me. I have been in one or two situations where if I hadn’t found a way to forgive someone, tragedy would have resulted.
This piece has inspired me to at least partially forgive Giles Fraser for the bilge he’s spouted on Unherd.
I’m not there yet, but well done you!
Forgiveness is a matter for the private domain. The aggrieved individuals can forgive the offender or not.
But forgiveness of private misbehaviour is meaningless In the public domain.
One can appreciate The Prince’s efforts to make amends but at the same time feel that he’s not worthy to officiate in public functions.
So basically Prince Andrew is the wrong hook to hang the issue of forgiveness on.
I don’t know much about Prince Andrew. Like all second sons in that family (and particularly with that father) he was destined for the armed forces. Same with Prince Harry; they both served their country in war, demonstrating duty, loyalty and courage. Does that count for nothing these days?
Being in the navy was likely the cause of his marriage breaking up – an occupational hazard for MPs, fly-in fly-out miners and others who are called away from home for long periods. Following his navy career he was given a role in selling British-made arms overseas – his princely glamour and military background made him successful at it, which translated as jobs for British workers. So, quite a good, long record.
His ‘failure’ seems to have been to be, for a period, a social acquaintance of his friend’s husband. In that circle he may or may not have had sex with a 17 year-old girl who appears to have been happy to trade sex for the glamorous lifestyle. We’ll never know. But we might remember that it is he who is without sin that can throw the first stone.
Very well put
I am with Etty. I think you make very light of the problem of his association with Geoffrey Epstein, as if he were simply the victim of wokish humbug. There are plenty of men who go unpunished for this kind of seediness and no doubt women. But this doesn’t make it ok. The Epstein story is one of abuse of power. It matters not whether Epstein’s teenage targets were complicit or not. It is a failure of judgement and upbringing that he didn’t seem to realise this association would destroy his reputation. Reputations can be rebuilt…but only slowly and from the bottom up…and without the help of powerful people.
I don’t care that much about his association with Epstein. Former Presidents of the U.S. were happy to be entertained by Epstein, he was very well connected. If Andrew himself wasn’t doing anything wrong, and we don’t know that he did, I guess he thought it was just ‘modern life’ – Epstein wanted the cache of associating with Andrew and Andrew wanted financial tips from Epstein. Lord knows who he associated with when he was pushing weapons sales in the middle east
I disagree with you about whether it matters that the 17 year old girl was complicit or not. If she hadn’t been complicit her allegation would be very serious.
What I wanted to suggest is that people aren’t all good or all bad. Andrew has quite a few ticks on the right side of the ledger, I think we can cope with the fact that he has faults. Overall I don’t see that he deserves to be ‘cancelled’, the faults can be forgiven.
teenagers think they are grown up but they are not. we know that Epstein exploited this for his own ends and no one at the heart of his operation was concerned with their welfare. this whole question is about degrees of association. like the devil, Epstein knew how to tempt, manipulate and exploit. I don’t think it is a new idea that if you get embroiled in something like this it will harm your reputation and if you are a public figure you may have to resign your positions. it is not just about the specific accusations, which will never be tested in law.
as to the former US presidents, if they stand for office again, the American public will make their own judgements and decide how much they care.
“cancellation” is not about public opinion in the true sense of the word. it is more about well organised groups of activists successfully intimidating public institutions and employers. the Duke of York is a public figure and it is my impression he fell foul of public opinion. his TV interview did not help. I don’t understand the rush and I don’t think it is a good tactic for the circumstances.
Well, we agree that he fell foul of public opinion, but my guess is that it’s not because of a slight association with Epstein, or a possible liaison with a 17 year old. Who cares? What you hear all the time is it’s because he’s ‘arrogant’. That’s why he deserves to be taken down a peg or two, or three. Arrogance is an unattractive trait, but it runs in the family – his father? his aunt? – and he was brought up in that old royal way. You see it in Charles, Anne and Andrew, but not in the next generation – all their children are fine. We can choose to see Andrew’s arrogance in the way we now think of the arrogance of his elder relatives – as kind of an amusing historical feature, soon to fade away!
Didn’t Prince Andrew’s accuser step back when she knew she was going to be subpoenaed and have her assertions questioned in court?
On the basis of being innocent until proved guilty would seem to be relevant here.
I didn’t see the word ‘penitence’ used in the article. Surely, if ‘forgiveness’ is one side of a coin, then ‘penitence’ is the other.
I don’t think forgiveness is conditional on penitence at all.
Not exclusively. Acts of charity and calling upon the intercession of the saints are other ways of obtaining forgiveness.
It can just be given, rather than obtained.
Agreed, given by the grace of God. And isn’t a definition of Grace “an undeserved gift by an unobligated giver”?
There is some confusion between mercy and grace in this thread.
“This is why social justice warriors end up consuming each other in an orgy of recrimination.”
Very insightful. True Christian values are often at odds with their secular adaptations, such as social and racial justice.
Because this is what SJWs do ! The famous “narcissism of small differences” of the Left (ref Judean People’s Front, the appalling pile-on on J K Rowling, …).
All very nice, but behind Welby’s comment seems to lie the assumption that it’s any business of the mob and the media to ‘forgive’ Prince Andrew, who has not been found guilty of any crime. Instead he has been pronounced ‘disgraced’ – which has nothing to do with ‘justice’, but from which there is no way back and which leaves no room for forgiveness.
If he were a ‘Noble Roman’ he would fall on his sword and save his family and the nation from embarrassment. But, sadly he isn’t.
Suicide isn’t noble.
And it is contrary to Christian teachings.
Thus the use of the term’Noble Roman’. Attitudes change.
It can be! And why should the church decide your fate if you wish to end it?
Having lost many to depression and then the suicide, I think I may know one or two things about the syndrome.
I think that would be exactly the wrong thing to do. Do you recommend the same for all who have been convicted by the gutter press and social media? Perhaps consider the case of John Profumo, disgraced for something he did do, but then led an exemplary life and was later awarded an OBE – that seems to me to be a far better way to go.
Profumo showed signs of contrition from the start, unlike for example the simply dreadful Judge Denning.
Fortunately he has got the “get out of gaol free” card,
the dreaded COVID-19!
He is, however, guilty of bringing the Royal family and the country into disrepute (and bringing the Royal family into disrepute really takes some doing). Remember, he is on the public payroll and he only had one job – representing his country. Which he failed to do. You may be happy with that. I’m not. And the majority of the country isn’t either.
That’s without considering the man’s arrogance and entitlement (others have remarked on this and I know from reliable acquantainces this is true). And his appalling judgement in continuing to associate with Jeffrey Epstein. And the fact that he got his mum to pay off someone he never met. All he had to do was prove his innocence in court. He chose not to do so.
His job – his only job for which he was very well paid – was to represent his country with decency and dignity. He failed. He’s finally been fired. Good riddance.
We can talk about “forgiveness” when he shows some contrition. I’m not holding my breath.
The archbishop of Canterbury is not unpopular because he preaches forgiveness. He is unpopular because he has shamelessly politicised the position that he holds, and thus brought it into disrepute.
His God may forgive him for this. But his congregations are not. They are melting away like mist in the sun. Hardly a surprise.
Such an illuminating take on justice. So necessary for our accusatory times.
I agree with what Giles says here about forgiveness but the Archbishop of Canterbury is as much a political figure as a spiritual one and I think one does well to view what he says with a healthy dose of scepticism.
As with the Pope.
Christians can get confused about forgiveness if they don’t pay close attention.
Matthew 18:15-17 sets out conditions for forgiveness and what happens if those are not fulfilled. Moreover, these conditions are applied solely to ‘brethren’, and the failure to meet them results in such a co-religionist being treated like a ‘heathen’.
Given the historical context in which Jesus’s words are spoken, what is ‘heathen’ likely to mean? This passage goes no further than implying that forgiveness involves not rendering evil for evil. Nor are the conditions for forgiveness and the consequences of failure to meet them ‘messy’. Jesus described the workings of the world in saying that as you give, so shall you get back.
In his book, The Lion’s World, Rowan Williams liked to think that God’s judgement and the forgiveness following would be a private matter between the sinner and God. Matthew 18 provides evidence to the contrary, as do other pronouncements of Jesus (such as the men of Nineveh acting as witnesses for the prosecution).
As has been pointed out by others, the modish fashion for making an apology (such as for historical wrongs) allows the one making the apology to gain the kudos of making it while at the same time heaping opprobrium on the people of the past. The Archbishop of Canterbury prostrated himself on a visit to India for a wrong committed under the Raj. Yet Christianity is supposed to be about confessing one’s own sins, not those of others. That’s an act that gets no kudos.
As for post-Apartheid South Africa, it’s not uncommon to find young white South Africans who have left that country because, they say, they have suffered discrimination in attempting to gain employment. Have they been rendered evil for evil?
I think people were angry because he needs more time in the sin bin and he needs to show humility. He looked like the cat that had got the cream when he appeared next to the queen in her Landau for his father’s memorial. there was even a bit of “up yours” as swooshed passed his surprised siblings. it is only God that can see into his soul. the rest of us would prefer to see nothing of him for 2 years; other than with a woolly hat, doling out free meals to the homeless. it is true there is a group, who shall not be named, who have no capacity to forgive and will never forgive; because vanity and pride have eaten them up (and perhaps, like the prince, they can’t see it in themselves). the arch bish yet again harmed his message by choosing the wrong pretext.
The Queen didn’t go to Prince Philip’s memorial service in a “landau”. Prince Andrew had every right to be there – more so than anyone else who was there bar the family. I am also quite sure that none of the family were taken by surprise even if the public were – the Queen doesn’t operate that way. In her frail state and at such a public event she needed someone at her side who understood her needs. Prince Andrew fitted the bill perfectly as he spends more time with her than anyone else since he stepped back from all public duties. I rarely agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury but he had this issue dead right.
If we are going to have a Royal Family then it is not wrong to be concerned about its morality. There will be people who love the genre irrespective, but what we should really be worried about – as future allegedly constitutional monarchs – is the espousal by Prince Charles and Prince William of the WEF and the Great Reset, by which they might retain their own great wealth while the populace – happy or not – if they are still alive will by 2030 own nothing. The Queen talks of a great future but for whom? Perhaps an appropriate – and more important – discussion is the British state being completely out of control, with the Royals in the advanced guard. Did not the Queen go off piste to support “poor Mr Hancock”, prime advocate of Klaus Schwab’s 4th Industrial Revolution, two days before he had to go because of a right Royal sexual indiscretion? Techno-feudalism beckons and our masters are not necessarily our betters.
Forgiveness requires repentance. Then it is mandated. If not, then as the Jewish sages said “כל שנעשה רחמן על האכזרים, לסוף נעשה אכזר על רחמנים” – “all those who are merciful to the cruel, end up being cruel to the merciful” (Rabbi Eliezer in Midrash Tanhuma on the portion of Metzora’).
The problem with “forgiving” Prince Andrew is that he hasn’t admitted he’s done anything wrong, far less repented his sins. The Truth & Reconciliation commission was at least an attempt to acknowledge the past. Similarly, BLM will remain obsessed with “justice” until there is some real acknowledgement (from the nation) of injustice.
Absolutely spot on. For some years now I have realised that the most controversial line in the Creed is that we believe in the “forgiveness of sins.”
God forgives, i don’t! Well not often and it really depends on whom, and for what!
It does nothing for Unheard’s credibilty when you can not even get Giles’s workplace details right. Especially as editorial staff are meant to be media aware and yet missed the publication of multiple news stories reporting Gile’s installation at St Anne’s, Kew, weeks ago.
If Prince Andrew wants “forgiveness”, does he not first need to “repent” ? I’m not a believer, but that’s my understanding of now it’s supposed to work. And I hadn’t noticed any trace of repentance from Prince Andrew yet.
In which case, Welby is not “doing his job”. Which is no surprise at all to me. He doesn’t even seem to understand what his job actually is.
dfvsdf
Everything about the Royal Family is very calculated. They only care about themselves and hanging onto power. Andrew is only repentant because he was found out.
Did I miss the bit where Andrew was repentant ?