This author admits in the first paragraph that the Marian doctrines of the RCC are not biblical.
No need to read further.
Yes. We disagree with Protestants. That's why we are not Protestants. Yes, Protestants disagree with us. That's why they're Protestants.
If you're not going to engage, that would be great. Please take all of those who attack our doctrines before they take the trouble to find out what they are along with you.
I just noticed your tagline (Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!).
I thought this might be interesting to you, as it offers a slightly different perspective.
The island of Tonga is a devoutly Christian state. Their National Anthem is the Hymn ‘O Mighty God’, and their national rugby team, which is one of the prides of their nation has 3 scripture readings and numerous prayer and praise times each day as part of their regular training regimen.
They do not pray for victory though, but rather that God protect them from injuries and help them to do the best that they can.
You have a unique ability to pack several errors in one terse statement.
First, he admits no such thing. He says:
The Marian dogmas were big problems. I still thought [around 1984] the Catholic claims on Mary were outrageous. I went back and read some essays, and concluded that the Bible alone wouldn't compel acceptance of the Marian dogmas; the Bible alone wouldn't lead you to them, yet sustained theological reflection on Jesus' relationship to His mother; if you take the humanity of Jesus with the utmost seriousness, and you take Mary as a real mother, not just a "conduit," and you begin to think about motherhood and sonship, and you think about what it means to receive a body from your mother: flesh . . . God didn't make Jesus' flesh in Mary's womb; He got Mary's flesh. If God had wanted to, He could have made Jesus as He made Adam: from the dust of the earth. But He didn't. He decided He would use a human being to give Jesus His humanity. And so what kind of flesh is Jesus gonna get? If He's gonna be perfect humanity, He'd better have perfect human flesh untainted by sin. To me the Immaculate Conception, seen in that light, made sense. The Assumption also seemed to me to make a great deal of sense. There were precedents to it: Enoch and Elijah, those who rose from the dead at the time of the rending of the veil of the Temple. And if Jesus is going to give anybodye priority; if He's going to truly honor His mother and father, wouldn't He give Mary, whose flesh He received, priority in the Resurrection? So I think that's what the doctrine of the Assumption preserves. I could go on and talk forever on the distinctive doctrines of the Church.
What he perhaps admits here is that if one reads the Bible without reflection, then such unreflecting man would not find the Marian dogmas there. Not exactly the same thing.
Second, your post reflects the Protestant superstition that every doctrine has to be found in the Bible. That is itself not "biblical".
Third, the entire purpose of Al talking about it is that his view on the Marian dogmas changed and came in alignment with Catholicism. You make his sound like someone who continues to think that Catholic Mariology is "outrageous" yet goes to Catholic Church ... why exactly?