My answer to the OP would be influenced by two considerations.
(a) What was the guy famous for, and is his pedophilia relevant to whether that fame is deserved or needs to be reassessed?
and
(b) Does his fame consist in substantial measure of admiration or adulation?
As to (a): Assuming the guy’s a famous novelist or landcape painter or engineer, noted only for his technical prowess in his particular field (which is unrelated to children or to his bad deeds), I don’t know that his fame as an accomplished person in that field, worthy of admiration for technical skills, would logically need to change much. However, if his fame has something to do, directly or indirectly, with the subject of his crimes, then sure we need to report the crimes prominently and re-assess whether his fame is deserved. For instance (to take an example of non-sexual misdeeds that shouldn’t change someone’s reputation): Talleyrand is renowned for being a master politician. Someone also said about him (I think) “He would have traded his soul for a pile of shit, and would have been right to do so.” But that’s not at all inconsistent with his reputation as a conniving Machiavellian political mastermind. Similarly if a guy was known as a great cricket player, but also beat his wife or diddled kids, it wouldn’t change his batting prowess. I put Montgomery in this camp.
But . . . Dodgson, or Baden-Powell, maybe go in another camp. Dodgson is specifically known as a delightful character interested in entertaining kids. Well, if we find that this interest was not entirely . . . disinterested, that’s relevant to his reputation as an avuncular story-teller. Similarly, Baden-Powell’s reputation as a molder of boys’ characters almost certainly needs to be reassessed in view of the reports that his tutelary impulses were, supposedly, coupled with a more straightforward interest in the young male form. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Baden-Powell#On_his_interest_in_boys
To take it to the most obvious level, someone like Fr. Bruce Ritter, whose reputation was as a savior of runaways and sex-abuse victims at Covenant House, has rightly seen this fame evaporate completely, to be replaced with infamy, as it turns out that the very “ministry” for which he gained fame was also the vehicle for his exploitation of these boys.
(b) Is the fame simply recognition of skill or objective achievment, or does it consist of admiration or a desire to emulate? If the latter, bringing character in does matter. For instance, lots of people thought Grant was a great general but a bit of a drunken bum otherwise. Well, if we found out he also cheated on his wife or bothered sheep, who cares, because we were admiring his military tactics, not his morals, to begin with. On the other hand, the JFK mystique seems to consist largely of admiration and awe for him and his family’s “dynasty,” and (IME), few JFK admirer’s have much to mention beyond his “leadership” or “inspiration” as to technical merits in his performance as President that would make him “great.” Because it was his persona that largely earned his fame, I think his personal flaws have relevance to re-evaluating that fame or reverence. Similarly, if we learned of personal peccadillos of Warren Buffet it wouldn’t necessitate questioning his financial acumen, if we learned of equal missteps by Mother Teresa, different story as to her saintly reputation.l
