Crime & Immorality in the Catholic Church
McLoughlin, Emmett. 1962. Crime & Immorality in the Catholic Church. New York: Lyle Stuart, Inc. 1962.
Rating:
0
Introduction:
I picked this book up years ago when I was a faithful Mormon. I think I found it in a used bookstore in Morgan, UT. I had the impression that it would be a well-documented book detailing some of the crimes and atrocities committed in the name of Catholicism over the centuries. I was wrong.
Review:
This is a hate book, written by a former priest who converted to Protestantism. And rather than document atrocities in history, the focus of this book is to claim that Roman Catholicism does not inspire morality in its members, “[Religion's] most important product—its reason for existence—is morality, the molding of lives that are not only good, but better than others, with a greater assurance than that of other religions that its members will be far less sinful, much better emotionally adjusted throughout life and thus more certain of eternal happiness in heaven. The purpose of this book is to show that the Roman Catholic Church in its most important work is a failure. Among its members crime and immorality are greater than among the unchurched or the members of other churches” (p. 17). Not only does the author not have any good, authoritative sources to indicate crime rates are higher among Catholics, but his very premise is a logical fallacy – a strawman. He is setting up an argument that is not true and not claimed by Catholicism. The purpose Catholicism claims is to spread its believed truth about the fallen nature of man and Jesus Christ’s atonement. Morality may play a role in that, but it is not the sole reason of existence of religion. Anyone who thinks that religion exists solely to maintain morality is missing the much bigger picture. Yes, from a functionalist perspective in sociology some scholars have made the argument that religion codifies and reinforces morality in society. But that is really not why religion exists. Claiming that is the purpose of religion then showing that one has fallen short in achieving that end is a strawman argument – it is not a logically defensible position.
If you don’t accept Catholicisms manifest reason for existence (which you probably should not accept) – to spread the message of Christ – the latent (and real) reason is still not morality maintenance, but rather its continued existence. As Dawkins argues in his discussions of religion (pick any of his books as a reference), religion is a meme, and the purpose of a meme is self-replication, not societal betterment. Ergo, if a side effect of that meme is that it increases morality in such a fashion that it improves the spread of the meme, than the meme will be more successful than other memes, but that is not the purpose of the meme. The purpose of the meme is self-replication, nothing more.
So, having illustrated that the primary purpose of the book is, in fact, a logical fallacy, now let me turn to the approach. The author loves to say things like, “In the rich soil of freedom of thought and worship prepared and preserved by Protestantism and Freemasonry…” (p. 14). I may not be a genius, but I don’t think it takes one to see where this book is going. The author is a Protestant and a Freemason and is claiming those groups do inspire good morals but Catholics don’t. Not a strong basis for his argument. If he derives his morals from the Bible, one of the most immoral books still in publication, he is at best a hypocrite and at worst just naive. Here’s another example of his biased, indefensible, and hypocritical position, “Because I believe in spiritual and religious liberty I have become a Protestant” (p. 25). As though those two must go together…
Perhaps in recognition of the shaky ground he is on arguing from a Protestant perspective, the author goes so far as to insinuate that Catholicism may not even be a religion, “He might become rather cynical and wonder if Roman Catholicism be really a religion at all, or whether it is perhaps some less noble enterprise cleverly disguised under the masquerade of religion” (pp. 17-18). You can’t very well consider Catholicism a religion if you are claiming religion is all about morality and you are still religious. It kind of taints the whole boat of religions. So, rather than taint his religious position by allowing Catholicism to remain a member of the group he implies that Catholicism is something other than a religion.
The author does claim that Roman Catholics are disproportionately represented among prison convicts, but the source of his data is sketchy. He also says things like, “Illiterates are generally criminally inclined” (p. 35), which just left me with a sour taste in my mouth. Come page 40 and I put the book down. I have better things to do with my time.
So, maybe if you’re a dyed-in-the-wool, Catholic hating Protestant and Freemason you’ll like this book. That would be especially true if you don’t care about logical fallacies or other poor arguments or lack of data. But if you are looking for a historical book on the atrocities in Catholic history, this isn’t the book for you… Look elsewhere.