The literal reading in Catholic hermeneutics takes precedence over any other. If St. John wanted to say “Israel clothed with the sun, and the moon under Israel’s feet, and on Israel’s head a crown of twelve stars And being with child, Israel cried travailing in birth, etc” — he could have. But in this, divinely inspired, elaborately written text “woman” is used, and not “Israel”.
Therefore our first reading is that the passage applies to Mary.
Does the passage teach anything about Mary, the Church, and Israel? Absolutely yes. It is very often in the scripture that you read the text literally, and then you reach for anagogical and allegorical meanings. For example, when Christ caused the future apostles to catch an abundance of fish, it was firstly literal Peter, literal Andrew and literal fish. It would be wrong to say,— “No, it was not really Peter and Andrew fishing, because this episode is about converting disciples in the future Church and not about fishing”.
None of these supplemental meanings deny another. Once we recognized Mary in that passage we see what meaning is attached to her motherhood, and through that to her queenship. We see that she has a deep connection to all the children who obey Christ, and so therefore she is a type of the Church; she is, one might say, the mystical Church. The flight to the desert, and the return, and the vision of the stars point to another connection, that to Israel (the number 12 refers to both the tribes of Israel and the Apostolic college).
So no, when someone reads Apocalypse 12 and sees the Church or even Israel, the prefigurement of the Church in it, that is not entirely wrong, but it is selective reading of the Bible if it is the only thing one sees.
Your selective reading causes you to "see" Mary. In fact you come to the passage prepared to shoe horn Mary into the fit when she's not there in the first place. In fact what you are saying is that on an allegorical level, Mary is a symbol of the church, which may or may not be true, but I don't think you want to go there.
Hermeneutics is not subjective. Like "feelings" and gnosticism improper hermeneutics lead to gross error, which we actually see happening here, as you insist you will "see" Mary the mother of Christ" in Rev 12 no matter what evidence is presented otherwise. Kind of like a detective ignoring all the evidence and convicting someone of a crime, just because he "knows" who did it.
A complete reading of the text, including all of the elements, shows that it is Israel.
There is no discernable reason to even be considering Mary in that context; a ‘literal’ reading there is impossible.