Here is a standard argument dealing with this type of problem, often known as approximation-to-the-identity. Here is a slightly general claim, which does not harm the essence of the argument.
Proposition. Let $K_n \in C([-1,1])$ and assume that $(K_n)$ satisfy the following assumtions:
- Nonnegativity. $K_n(x) \geq 0$ for all $x \in [-1, 1]$ and $n \geq 1$.
- Normalization. $\int_{-1}^{1} K_n(x) \, \mathrm{d}x = 1$ for all $n \geq 1$.
- Concentration. For any $\delta > 0$, $\lim_{n\to\infty} \int_{|x|>\delta} K_n(x) \, \mathrm{d}x = 0$.
Then for any $f \in C([-1, 1])$, we have
$$ \lim_{n\to\infty} \int_{-1}^{1} f(x)K_n(x) \, \mathrm{d}x = f(0). $$
In other words, $K_n(x)$ approximates the Dirac delta $\delta(x)$, which is "the identity" of the convolution (hence the name approximation-to-the-identity). Before the proof, let us check that this can be applicable to OP's problem. Indeed, set
$$K_n(x) = \frac{(1-x^2)^n}{\int_{-1}^{1} (1-t^2)^n \, \mathrm{d}t}. $$
Then the conditions 1 and 2 are obvious. For the concentration, notice that $(1 - t^2)^n \geq (1 - |t|)^n$, and so,
$$ \int_{|x|>\delta} K_n(x) \, \mathrm{d}t
\leq \frac{(1 - \delta^2)^n}{\int_{0}^{1}(1 - t)^n \, \mathrm{d}t} = (n+1)(1 - \delta^2)^n \xrightarrow[n\to\infty]{} 0. $$
Therefore $\int_{-1}^{1} f(x)K_n(x) \, \mathrm{d}x \to f(0)$ by the conclusion of the proposition.
Proof of Proposition. For any $\epsilon > 0$, find $\delta > 0$ so that $|x| < \delta$ implies $|f(x) - f(0)| < \epsilon$. Also, choose a bound $M > 0$ of $f$. Then
\begin{align*}
\left| \int_{-1}^{1} f(x)K_n(x) \, \mathrm{d}x - f(0) \right|
&\leq \int_{-1}^{1} |f(x) - f(0)|K_n(x) \, \mathrm{d}x \\
&= \int_{|x|<\delta} |f(x) - f(0)|K_n(x) \, \mathrm{d}x + \int_{|x|\geq\delta} |f(x) - f(0)|K_n(x) \, \mathrm{d}x \\
&\leq \int_{-1}^{1} \epsilon K_n(x) \, \mathrm{d}x + \int_{|x|\geq\delta} 2M K_n(x) \, \mathrm{d}x \\
&= \epsilon + 2M \int_{|x|\geq\delta} K_n(x) \, \mathrm{d}x.
\end{align*}
So we have
$$ \limsup_{n\to\infty} \left| \int_{-1}^{1} f(x)K_n(x) \, \mathrm{d}x - f(0) \right| \leq \epsilon. $$
But since the left-hand side a fixed number independent of $\epsilon$ and the right-hand side can be made arbitrarily small, letting $\epsilon \downarrow 0$ proves the desired claim. $\square$