The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness: Christopher Hollis Summary & Analysis

Hollis argues that Simon should have said “a word of compassion,” because the law of God is the law of love. Karl was frankly confessing his crime and was sincerely repentant. Had Karl lived, he should have tried to attempt some service to the Jews. But because he was on his deathbed, he could not.

Hollis views the actions of Jesus at His crucifixion when he prayed for the forgiveness of His own murderers as the “absolute moral law,” and believes that Simon should have done the same.

Hollis addresses the arguments made by Arthur and Josek: that Simon could not forgive sins committed against someone else. Hollis argues that Karl’s crime was an incident in a general campaign of genocide, and Simon was certainly a victim of that campaign. His forgiveness would not have been a casual word of someone who pardoned without understanding the magnitude of Karl’s crimes.

Hollis does see Karl’s actions as odd in that he asked for Simon at his deathbed and not a priest. If he had in fact returned to his faith, God would surely have granted him mercy, Hollis believes. In his final words, Hollis addresses the “bitter sick joke” about God being on leave that the Jews in the camps made, because God must always be trusted and followed, as modeled in the story of Job.