Have I been misinformed?
"literally"? That word was used? That's certainly interesting and you were possibly misinformed. If the word "really" or "sacramentally" wa used, then there is something to discuss. But "literally", which is overused anyway, is A word I wouldn't want casually to apply to the presence of Christ in the sacrament.
On the other hand,
If a statue can bleed, then why can't it answer your prayers? I can bleed, and the number of prayers I can answer is limited, and most Prot.s wouldn't consider them prayers.
Can you bleed? Can you answer prayers? What connection is there between a rarer than Prots like admit attribution of a miraculous phenomenon to a statue and a statue's being able to answer prayer?
If the point is to ventilate anger and suspicion about Catholics, maybe there could be a convention whereby this could be signified. Some of us Catholics would take it upon ourselves to read the angry posts and to pray for the poster.
But if the point is serious enquiry or even serious discussion about what Catholic teaching is, then I have to say it is an incredible non sequitur to suggest that a statue's bleeding would imply its ability to answer prayers.
I think alot of people lost you when you said you could answer prayers.