Sometimes even devotees who are recognized for their service to the mission of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu do things that are sinful or even immoral. In one sense it is not a sin to call a spade a spade and tell others about the facts that happened, but there are a few points that should make us a little careful when condemning such devotees.

The first point is that not everything we hear is true. Often people misunderstand things or make facts seem to be much more serious than they are in reality when they tell other people. Even when we directly see something, there is still some possibility that we may misunderstand what happened. There are cases when someone is accused of a crime by eyewitnesses and later is proven innocent.

Often we can’t also understand the intentions, and this can also make a great difference. Some of the sons of Advaita Acarya misunderstood what they saw, and condemned Srila Nityananda Prabhu based on His behavior with their father, incapable of understanding what was really happening.

Therefore, when we condemn someone, even if based on proof, there is always some possibility that we may be actually accusing an innocent person, or we may be accusing him of a crime more serious than what he actually committed.

A second point is that a person may have done something sinful or immoral in the past, but he may have since been absolved due to repentance and engagement in devotional service. This is also an invisible process that may be very difficult to notice. This was a mistake committed by the Yamadutas, for example, when they tried to take Ajamila to hell due to his long sequence of sins, failing to realize that Ajamila had already atoned for these sins by his chanting of the holy name of Narayana. When the Vishnudutas appeared, they argued that the Yamadutas could not take them because he was innocent, leading to the discussion that is registered on the pages of the Srimad Bhagavatam.

There is however a third point that is even subtler. Every devotee has actually two identities. One is the ethereal identity, which is connected with the devotional service he performs. Another identity is the material, conditioned identity, which is connected with his faults and sins and exists under the three modes of nature. We may see these two things together, but from the point of view of Krsna, they are actually separated.

Krsna takes into consideration the eternal nature, with little regard for the temporary conditioned nature. Because of this vision, Krsna continues to love His devotees even when they commit mistakes. The crimes done by the material identity of the devotee are dealt with by the material energy. Because of this, there is always some danger in condemning a devotee, even when he clearly acted wrongly, because Krsna will see the devotional service he performed and not his faults.

Of course, this doesn’t mean we should become completely passive and fail to punish people who harmed others, but we should do it carefully, understanding the risks involved.

A final point however is that sometimes devotees who did questionable things in the past attain high positions and accept being worshipped as pure devotees. This, understandably attracts the rage of others who question the justice of it based on their past actions. Usually, people are ready to forget about the mistakes one committed before becoming a devotee, but when one is involved in immoral activities after becoming a member of the devotee community, especially if such actions involve harming others or abusing a position of authority, things become more complicated. Maybe in such cases, one should be more modest, which would make the situation much easier for everyone.

In this direction, we have the example of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, who as a child accidentally eat a mango that was meant for being offered to the deity. Although he was at the time just an innocent child, he took it seriously and made a vow of never again eating a mango in his life, showing great humility around this incident. During his whole adult life, he was claiming to be an offender even though his “offense” was just to have eaten a mango when he was a child.