Molestation and the reputations of great men

[Lettow77]

 Serious question, languish, and one that is strongly reminiscent of the Catholic Church's problems.

Assuming a man is lauded as great, and has justly earned his station through various achievements, what should be done if he has molested a child in a position of trust?

Assume he wasn't caught but it is known among a select few- it is out of society's eyes. Should it be kept that way? Does he cease being a great man, and become instead defined for his sinful indiscretion? Finally, consider this- the man is beyond punishment now, being quite dead, and it is only his memory that is in jeopardy.

I am very much at grief about this, as it effects numerous dear to me, and of course calls for a re-imagining of how I knew certain people and their life narratives. You can never know everything that goes into making someone who they are, that's for sure.

Is it a great crime and disservice to pretend the molestation never happened?

I know languish is fond of making light of my life and times, but i'd appreciate a serious response at this, if that was at all possible.

[Syt]

A person can do great works and still be despicable human being. Some may say it's a prerequisite.

Anyhow, if it involves a crime, the authorities should be involved at any rate. And people should know the full truth. I never quite bought into "we mustn't destroy icons because they're important for society" line. Tear down the old icons, create new ones.

[Eddie Teach]

As it's molestation, not murder, and the perpetrator himself is dead, I'd leave it to the victims to decide if they want to publicize the deeds or not.

[Admiral Yi]

As Pedro touched on, the primary concern should be the well-being and happiness of the victims.  If publicizing helps them come to terms, then that's the thing to do.

[Viking]

Mussolini made the trains run on time but that doesn't mean he was a scumbag.
Rosalind Franklin was a genius scientist, but apparently a horrible person.

We, not just the victims, need to know the truth.

[Darth Wagtaros]

You mean 'wasn't a scumbag' right Vikes? Right?

[Viking]

You mean 'wasn't a scumbag' right Vikes? Right?

Eh, yeah, whoops. Mussolini was a scumbag.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Right.

[lustindarkness]

Assuming a man is lauded as great, and has justly earned his station through various achievements, what should be done if he has molested a child in a position of trust?

What you thought was a great man is not, come to terms with it.

[CountDeMoney]

Mussolini made the trains run on time but that doesn't mean he was a scumbag.

[Ed Anger]

Benito was a jolly man.

[Viking]

Benito was a jolly man.

He had the virtue of not being a kiddie fucker, so, not all bad. Unlike hitler who first pulled a jerry lee lewis and fucked his underage cousin then driving her into suicide.

[Martinus]

Speaking of which, apparently Kosciuszko was a kiddie fucker.

And I agree with Peter Wiggin. And if there are no victims alive, I would err on the side of truth.

[alfred russel]

Speaking of which, apparently Kosciuszko was a kiddie fucker.

Wow, that is a bummer.

Is that well established? Is that changing his assessment in Poland?

[Martinus]

Speaking of which, apparently Kosciuszko was a kiddie fucker.

Wow, that is a bummer.

Is that well established? Is that changing his assessment in Poland?

Well, I guess it's not really possible to establish that unequivocally - there are only scant mentions and euphemisms about this, and in that period probably noone was particularly shaken but he apparently liked young girls.