Shoot the messenger.
Are you denying that she said those things?
Would you be willing to state that anyone who said such things was preaching heresy?
If any source proof-texts, out of context, someone’s work, and that source has demonstarted an agenda to denigrate that someone’s work, it may be certainly legitimate to note that agenda, even without denying the authenticity of the quotes.
A good quote provides an example as to one’s thoughts. It’s often not hard at all to provide a misleading example. An irreputable source may be likely to provide misleading examples without the examples themselves being false.
>> Would you be willing to state that anyone who said such things was preaching heresy? <<
If it were the entirety of her message, it could certainly lead someone to heretical inferences. But it is not heresy, itself.
What you claimed she said was heresy. What she actually said was not.
Which was why I asked.
Aren't we seeing a pattern here?
The priest sex scandals are "over-blown;" Mother Teresa's own words don't mean what they say; and the pope didn't really intend to label all Protestant churches as "defective," just "wrong."
Jabberwocky.