That said, what struck me most from the quoted piece is the writer's astonishment that Quinn's character could be motivated by social conservatism or his fear of such a situation within his family. That motivation would of course have been twofold, the impression created that he was not capable of ruling his own household and how that would affect his ability to command the respect and obedience outside it, as well as the need to maintain the outwardly respectable facade.
The idea of any Catholic with any kind of prominence or reputation (criminal or otherwise) to maintain not being seriously concerned about the prospect of an unwed mother in the family in 1955 (or for an awful long time after that if we're being honest) is surely more outrageous. Irish women had their babies quietly taken into care and their families then shipped the mothers off to Britain or the US to start afresh! Is it really supposed to be a stretch to imagine the horror such circumstances would have stirred in the heart of the Italian working class? For someone who spent so long writing about movies of this era to appear so deaf to the prevalence, and indeed the power, of such perspectives seems very odd.
Now, while that motivation is there for Quinn's character, it's not the only theme running through the movie. The characteristic 1950s highlighting of the reach of organized crime is a big part of it all, and I think it's fair to say there are broader points being made - whether they are made successfully or not is another matter - about contemporary family dynamics.
Anyway, I just find it a little strange that the writer should focus so much on one aspect of the movie and then fail to demonstrate an appreciation for how much of an issue this would have been.