I saw this post by Ven. Pesala on dhammawheel
From milinda panha
The Debate of King Milinda> TheUnvirtuous
What is the difference between a layman who has done wrong and a monk who has done wrong?”
“There are ten qualities that distinguish a monk of poor moral habit from a layman of poor moral habit: he is full of reverence for the Buddha, Dhamma and Saṅgha; he recites the teachings and asks about the meaning, he has heard much, he enters an assembly with dignity because he fears reproach, he guards himself in body and speech, he sets his mind on exertion, he is in company with the monks, and if he does any wrong he is discreet. Furthermore, in ten ways he purifies gifts of faith. By wearing the robe of the Buddhas, by his shaven head he bears the mark of sages, by being in company with other monks, by his having taken refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Saṅgha, by his dwelling in a lonely place suitable for exertion, by his quest for the wealth of the Dhamma, by teaching the excellent Dhamma, because he takes the Dhamma as his guiding light, because he regards the Buddha as supreme, and by his observance of the Uposatha. For all these reasons he is worthy of offerings even though he has fallen from virtue. Just as hot water extinguishes a fire, a monk of poor moral habit purifies the gift of benefactors, for this was said by the Tathāgata in the Majjhima Nikāya:
“Whoever is virtuous and gives to the unvirtuous,
A gift rightfully acquired, the mind well pleased,
Firmly believing in the rich fruit of kamma,
This is an offering purified by the giver.”“Wonderful, Nāgasena, though I asked you an ordinary question you have given me an extraordinary answer, as a skilled cook would take an ordinary piece of meat and make with it a meal fit for a king.”