...And the virgin birth?.....the feeding of the multitudes?.......and the raising of Lazurus?.....and the resurrection?.....
It is a slippery slope indeed, and thus Trad RCs are reluctant to affirm the brand of RC scholarship the article of the OP expresses.
For a long time the devil, via Rome hindered Biblical literacy among the masses, but a second strategy is to reduce its authority by giving it a second or third class status, as Catholicism does, or by relegating historical accounts to fables, etc, and allowing allegorical meanings to predominate as the primary meaning.
And the reality is that the parameters of Rome, which rarely has infallibly defined Scripture texts (as the assured veracity of her teachings is not dependent upon positive warrant from Scripture - only that they do not contradict Scripture, according to her supreme interpretation) are such that RCs have a great deal of liberty to define Scripture texts as they see fit (such as when it comes to Mary).
And substantial disagreement can and does exists in Catholicism, and evangelicals testify to greater unity in core truths and moral views than their Catholic counterparts (being mostly liberal), whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death. And what you effectually teach is of greater testimony to your beliefs than what you officially says.
“If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”
Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.