Do Astronomers really never call Lagrangian points "libration points"?
A full-text search using the astronomical-literature collection on the Astrophysics Data System (more complete and more astronomy-specific than Google Scholar) yields 10,845 hits for "Lagrange point" and 2,302 for "libration point" (not sure how long that URL will be valid, but it's easy enough to redo the search). So it's clear the former is more common than the latter. 

Nonetheless, my impression from looking at article titles is that use of the "Lagrangian" sense of "libration point" significantly outnumbers the "lunar" sense that Hale prefers.

And it's clear that actual astronomers and physicists have been using "libration point" to refer "Lagrange point" since at least the beginning of the 20th Century. E.g., in Trunpler (1923), "Search for Small Planets at the Triangle Points of Mercury and the Sun", the Lagrange points are referred to interchangeably as "triangle points", "libration points", and "Lagrange's libration points." And Plummer (1903), "On Oscillating Satellites", refers to "points of libration" when discussing what are clearly the Lagrange points in the 3-body problem (e.g., "the three collinear points of libration").

So, yes, astronomers often refer to Lagrange points as "libration points", and have for at least a century; Hale is clearly wrong.