This is a book I probably spent more time trying to get through than I should have but I refused to give up on it. I felt the author was earnest and really had good intentions. The author is Canadian and works in media as a writer and on TV. He's written many previous books. I've never heard of him before, but I had seen the title in bookstores. The book has lots of flaws and one of them is that it is listed under Church Doctrines and Church History. It's closer to apologetics but he may be right as the subject matter he covers requires more than a little knowledge of Roman Catholic history and Theology. In other words this book isn't for the curious reader unacquainted with Catholicism, it's for the Catholic who hasn't had the opportunity to delve into the background and context for current positions and criticisms of the church before. The book has 5 chapters which are mostly evenly distributed page wise. These are: The abuse scandal, Catholics and History, Catholics and Theology, Catholics and Life, Catholics and other Stuff. There are Notes and a Bibliography. Coren has his best moments with Pius XII and the Holocaust and Right to Life issues. He's more muddled with the Crusades and the abuse scandal.
Basically, Cohen (a convert to Catholicism) to my mind wants to give Catholics the ability to question criticisms of the church rather than just agree to their validity and have no counterargument response to make in return. This is what I mean by his methodology being more apologetic than historical. Coren tends to fall more on the side of conservative Catholicism for his responses. I wouldn't recommend this book for the typical Catholic woman or man in the pew on Sunday but I might to the person studying more in depth on one of the topics he covers. Some of his arguments are not the most persuasive, even if he himself finds their only utility in not standing dumb to someone's absurd accusations against the church.

Coren sets out to clear up popular misconceptions about the Catholic church in a clear and unashamed manner. He sees both the Catholic church and its adherents as being derided, almost as part of a popular sport - 'let's diss the Catholics!'. Many of the fallacies surrounding the Church - the abuse scandals, the Inquisition - have been hyped out of control and it is refreshing to see that someone who is from that camp make a stand.
I agree with his premise - recently, in many parts of the world, it has become acceptable to levy insults and derrisive comments against Catholics (and other people of the Judeo-Christian faiths), more to show one's own 'superiority' than anything else.

However, that said, I don't think he made his arguments well at all. He is his own worst enemy in that nearly every one of the cases he argues falls down because he does not follow through and thus leaves enough holes in his arguments for ten dissenters to run through. I don't have to agree with his argument to take it as a valid, if opposing, opinion - but the arguments have to be solid. And they are not.
He switches focus frequently, thus making it look as if he's evading a point because he doesn't know how to counter it. His history is attrocious - he relies heavily on pro-Catholic sources, yet still manages to get serious facts wrong. He doesn't address certain aspects - in the case of abortion, he never mentions the negative aspects of an unwanted pregnancy forced on a woman who feels she has no other recourse; in the case of the abuse scandals, he doesn't mention the very delayed reaction of apology by the Pope to the victims; when mentioning the aid the Church supplies to third world countries, he doesn't mention the very specific agenda they have against birth control; and so on.
He uses very emotive language and examples which, again, make it look as if he's manipulating his audience instead of making his case. The section of euthanasia in particular was horrendous in its blatant manipulative nature - it did not address the very basic aspects of the pro-euthanasia faction, instead setting out to demonise it wholesale. This is weak and cheap - by denigrating your opponents opinion you show your own insecurity and lack of argument more than anything else.

I'm not Catholic or anti-Catholic - I don't define myself by religious or non-religious beliefs (contrary to atheists and people of faith, both who do). I agree that if you identify as a Roman Catholic, you have to follow all the rules. If you join a soccer club, you have to follow all the rules: it's the nature of playing for a team, sporting or religious. Yet I do wish Coren had taken the time and effort to construct a really tight and believable argument, instead of handing the more rampant and vocal atheists yet another bag of rotten eggs to throw at the Roman Catholic Church. ( )

Here's my review that I wrote for Credo Magazine: http://www.credomag.com/5/post/2011/07/why-catholics-are-right.html? ( )