[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think a pertinent question worth exploration is "what does such forgiveness look like"?

Setting aside for the moment what Joopsten might possibly do to earn the forgiveness of his peers, what does that even mean? An ongoing debate taking place right now in my community is what to do with Joosten's past scholarship. Do his deplorable crimes disqualify his scholarly work? By continuing to consult his past publications, do we—even unintentionally—validate his consumption of child abuse images?

I am conflicted. I suppose there is a level of forgiveness that I can aspire to by which the works of Joosten are sanctioned for consultation and citation. But I continue to be bothered by the notion that I am implicitly promoting a horrible person in the process.

Retribution for his actions will likely result in the ruin of his natural life. If he never gets another job, if he never publishes another paper, if he is never again positioned to teach—that seems like a reasonable consequence. Is there still a level of "forgiveness" by which a person must also continue to suffer the effects of his sins forever?

Absolutely.

How should we view works of all kinds of people who produce academic, artistic, etc work, but are deeply flawed people?

For example, in music, how are we to look at the works of Tchaikovsky, or Michael Jackson, both pedophiles - but great at music of different kinds?

But where do we draw the line? Every one of us has flaws, and has hurt other people at some point in our life. Where is the line where the sin becomes unforgivable? It's not an easy question to answer.

Certainly there are cases where the action is "unforgivable", and for most of us, the things we have done are forgivable. There must be a line somewhere inbetween.