It is not nasty or uncharitable to point out that a posted article contains several glaring false statements by offering proof positive of those lies.
If somebody writes he never learned about Redemption while undergoing Seminary Training that is a big enough red flag to warrant investigation.
Now if the person had written that the personal lives of his teachers and fellow students were so enamored of sin, despite all they were taught, and that lead him to question his faith, I would believe that 100%. I would have no reason to doubt him because I know (from other sources)the state many seminaries were in at the time.
But instead he repeats the tired old Protestant claims that Catholics don’t personally know Christ. That we never read the Bible. That we believe we are saved by works.
I get having to suit your message to your audience. But he could do that and be truthful as well. Heck even a “my personal study of the Bible, lead me to conclude I could not agree with Catholic teaching on Justification” along with the verses Protestants use to support Forensic Justification would certainly not be questionable.
But when an author uses whoppers to try to increase his bona fide’s he will be challenged.
You wrote, “But instead he repeats the tired old Protestant claims that Catholics don’t personally know Christ.”
Where did the author of this piece say that?
Maybe you are the one telling “whoppers to try to increase your bona fides.”