What could be the problem if "bad" is wrong assumed?
It would be exactly like, "how theravada was banned in Nepal", "how adi-shankracharya completely disbandoned and MURDERED theravada from india" and "how adi-shankracharya adopted sexual-'tantrism/mantrism/yantrism' to be dhamma".
And how about, because spoken in relations, when a householder criticises a monk and a monk pointson a householder, Nyom Alex, according to your views?
Householder criticizing a monk because of "holding wrong views and monk is right" OR "holding right views and monk is wrong". In both cases, monk is not to be confused, worried, concerned about sayings. If householder is ready to listen, it can be sorted out by having a dhamma discussion at suitable time, at suitable place.
Still, monk must not make arguments because monkhood was taken only for removing own's defilements, for providing peaceful-vibrant-food(METTA) to all. Dhamma, if not today then later, will have to be rediscovered, re-realized and re-propagated by next genius scientist, gem, buddha OR by any other means.
Still, IF ASKED, monk must preach dhamma(as far as experienced or learnt) only, by indirectly pointing out defaults in the tradition/practice(if any)..... but it might also lead to different views(just like how different schools emerged in buddhism). Alas! It's better to have only remain silent and if tradition-bounded, to have a common teaching discussed before-hand to be preached........ but it might lead to wrong teachings being preached like by hindu brahmins.
So, in my view and experience-- for monk-- better to eat once a day(if available/received), meditate full to heart, remain joyful, enthusiastic.
Good morning,
Will come-back later(might be tomorrow).....today is interview
, yesterday was a fraud company.
Metta.