From sinner to saint, quite a transformation.

As I do not live in the UK I have no idea at all about the person spoken of in the original post.

But yes, peoplle can change, if they want to, and if they realise that their former w ay of life has been wrong in any way.

Most of us never make the attempt, believing that we do not need to.

Those who feel the need to change, may be able to do so, if they have the requisite strength of character, and if at least one other person genuinily supports them in their choice and their efforts to change.

Some suceed, others as changing yourself is hard work, do not.

If we look at saints in the religious sense, St Francis of Assisi was the kind of young man no parent could be proud of, but a sudden change of heart occured in him, and he suceeded in transforming himself from what today we would call a jet-setter to a person devoted to living as humbly and cheaply as possible in order to help others.

Igatius of Loyola went from being a soldier who did not concern himself over much with thoughts of God, or his own soul, to become a devout founder of a new order of priests - the Society of Jesus.

Women too, have left a life of wealth and comfort, St. Claire of Assisi being one of them to serve God and her fellow humans in poverty.

So, yes sinners can become saints.

Yes I believe you can go from sinner, through learning and reflection to remorse, reformed behaviour, apology and recompense.

No one is perfect or a saint.

As a Christian I believe that no-one is beyond redemption. Jesus died on the Cross and rose again to pay the price for all sin, past, present and future.
The prerequisite for that forgiveness is genuine repentance and turning ones life over to the Lordship of Christ.
In the Bible the word 'saint' refers to a believer not a degree of goodness
Paul had a genuine conversion on the road to Damascus and lived a transformed life but it took him years to be accepted by the disciples and others because of the atrocities he had committed in his pre-coversion days.
Only God knows the true state of our hearts and I'm so glad it's not my job to try and sort it out.

I'm sure sinners can mend their ways and atone for their sins.

I also believe it's quite a normal reaction to be cynical.

Increasingly, I find myself defending politicians I would never in a thousand years have voted for... that comment about Margaret Thatcher was about as spiteful as spiteful can be. And quite possibly incorrect.

Yes, Tuliptree, of course he was sneering at her background, too.
Whatever he may have done since, I will always think of him as a thoroughly unpleasant man - who I dare say has found effective ways of portraying himself. In a different light.

That's what I don't like about Christianity.........do whatever and God will forgive you, just like that.

I think anyone can seek redemption by being ashamed and horrified by their own past actions but are unlikely to become saints.

Tuliptree

Maws - it’s a pity on a thread as serious as this that you think anybody cares about spelling that vile person’s name correctly.

Oh come on, he isn’t Fred West!

M0nica

I just hope I never do anything wrong when you are around Tulip. You sound utterly unforgiving.

No matter how wrong people go in life they can change and I would always choose to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Anyone's actions can be given a suspicious slant if you put your mind to it. Many of the things you blame him for seem to be no more than saying he comes from a certain section of society, which is an accident of birth, and hardly his fault.

I agree.
Anything that he did that was wrong, is still wrong. Even having been punished doesn't change that, and an ongoing punishment is that that he may no longer be trusted.
But questioning anyone’s right to repent and change their ways because of their standard of living?
Maybe all wrongdoers should live in abject poverty, wearing sackcloth and ashes to satisfy moral rectitude.

M0nica

I just hope I never do anything wrong when you are around Tulip. You sound utterly unforgiving.

No matter how wrong people go in life they can change and I would always choose to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Anyone's actions can be given a suspicious slant if you put your mind to it. Many of the things you blame him for seem to be no more than saying he comes from a certain section of society, which is an accident of birth, and hardly his fault.

Well sad, I agree 100%.

I’m yet to meet a 100% perfect person.

I’m not excusing him, but he did the crime, has served his time and now, like it not, legally and possibly morally, he has a clean slate.

Tuliptree

He’s lived a great life after prison. He spent 3 years at Oxford at someone else’s expense, he wrote books, had bits and pieces of work with the church, a few hours a week as prison chaplain, married very well, He was much much more than dishonest. All the things that led upto his libel case against the Guardian. He was Minister of State for Defence Procurement and violated ministerial rules by allowing an Arab businessman to pay his hotel bills at the Paris Ritz. Also whilst a Cabinet Minister he signed a Public Interest Immunity Certificate which gagged documentation being released from a company covering the time he was a director of that company. Then a few years later had to resign as Chief Secretary to the Treasury for breaking more ministerial rules. When the Guardian finally broke their story, it included the procurement of prostitutes for Arab businessmen. Then came his chutzpah in suing the paper and Granada TV for publicising all this. Then the collapse of the trial when evidence proved he was lying plus of course as part of this his attempts to get his wife and daughter to perjure themselves. What exactly has he done to make amends? He went bankrupt owing over £2m in unpaid legal bills What public service has he given, apart from the oft publicised bit of prison chaplain work? What price has he exactly paid? 7 months in prison and then feted thereafter by the C of E and right wing papers who publish multiple interviews with him which provide sanitised versions of his behaviour. Compared with most prisoners, he’s had a great post prison life. Society wedding at upmarket church, upmarket flat, parliamentary pass to Houses of Parliament, pension way above average wage. What’s not to like?

I think there’s many many more people that have done far far worse things.

I actually believe in forgiveness. He “appears” to be truly contrite and repentant and has served his time.

It matters not one jot how “easy” his life was in prison, it’s the “loss of liberty” that’s the “punishment” not really what happened inside.

Everyone (well almost everyone) is deserving of a second chance.

I don’t know him personally (guessing you don’t either), so who really knows if he’s truly committed to living a better life. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt.

foxie48

Yes, I believe in redemption in it's broadest sense. I'm not religious but I certainly believe that humans have the capacity to change for the better and that no-one should be written off because of past behaviour.

Yes!

I just hope I never do anything wrong when you are around Tulip. You sound utterly unforgiving.

No matter how wrong people go in life they can change and I would always choose to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Anyone's actions can be given a suspicious slant if you put your mind to it. Many of the things you blame him for seem to be no more than saying he comes from a certain section of society, which is an accident of birth, and hardly his fault.

He’s lived a great life after prison. He spent 3 years at Oxford at someone else’s expense, he wrote books, had bits and pieces of work with the church, a few hours a week as prison chaplain, married very well, He was much much more than dishonest. All the things that led upto his libel case against the Guardian. He was Minister of State for Defence Procurement and violated ministerial rules by allowing an Arab businessman to pay his hotel bills at the Paris Ritz. Also whilst a Cabinet Minister he signed a Public Interest Immunity Certificate which gagged documentation being released from a company covering the time he was a director of that company. Then a few years later had to resign as Chief Secretary to the Treasury for breaking more ministerial rules. When the Guardian finally broke their story, it included the procurement of prostitutes for Arab businessmen. Then came his chutzpah in suing the paper and Granada TV for publicising all this. Then the collapse of the trial when evidence proved he was lying plus of course as part of this his attempts to get his wife and daughter to perjure themselves. What exactly has he done to make amends? He went bankrupt owing over £2m in unpaid legal bills What public service has he given, apart from the oft publicised bit of prison chaplain work? What price has he exactly paid? 7 months in prison and then feted thereafter by the C of E and right wing papers who publish multiple interviews with him which provide sanitised versions of his behaviour. Compared with most prisoners, he’s had a great post prison life. Society wedding at upmarket church, upmarket flat, parliamentary pass to Houses of Parliament, pension way above average wage. What’s not to like?

He has taken the route John Profumo took after the Christine Keeler scandal.

Coould someone explain to me why someone who is descrbed as 'rich and entitled' cannot be genuimely penitent after going wromg and want to change their life and expite their wromg doing? presumably had he been poor and unentitled everyone would have been saying what a wonder he was.

remember St Francis, he of the love of animals was rich and entitled when those words really meant something. He gave it up to form an order of monks who walked the streets bare foot and lived at the lowest level with the poor.

If St Francis can do it, I cannot see why Jonathan Aitken cannot do it as well.

grumppa

He comes from a rich and well-connected family (Lord Beaverbrook), which must have reinforced the sense of superiority that persuaded him to be so stupid as to take on The Guardian in the way that he did. His family stood by him and his daughters as far as they could, I am sure.

That does not mean that he could not learn a lesson, regret, and mend his ways.

I agree. tbh I think there are easier ways of living your life after a prison sentence than what Aitken has chosen, particularly as he's so well connected. I believe that people can change and make a contribution to life and society and Aitken seems to be doing that. I'm not minimising his dishonesty, he was guilty and has paid the price but surely he's a right to live a better life after prison?

I think the word ‘entitled’ runs through him like a stick of rock.

The taking on of the Guardian was far from the beginning of his appalling behaviour

He comes from a rich and well-connected family (Lord Beaverbrook), which must have reinforced the sense of superiority that persuaded him to be so stupid as to take on The Guardian in the way that he did. His family stood by him and his daughters as far as they could, I am sure.

That does not mean that he could not learn a lesson, regret, and mend his ways.

So the same would be for a non-believer. Mollygo.

I wonder if Jonathan Aitken thought he was onto a winner after Jeffrey Archer libel case, where Archer had perjured his way successfully to fleecing the Daily Star to the tune of £500,000 in 1987. It took until 1999 for the truth to be known and Archer jailed.

He was 57 - plenty of floor scrubbing left in him

Plevey08

Is it better to believe in God and be a bad person or to be a good person and not believe in God?

It’s better not to be a bad person.
Believing in God is not a prerequisite for either good or bad behaviour.

Valdalj- he wasn’t 83 when he was released

Is it better to believe in God and be a bad person or to be a good person and not believe in God?