Unpleasant business - Richard John Neuhaus and Rockford Institute separate

THE Chicago Tribune and the New York Times (on page one) have published a story about the Rockford Institute (of Rockford, Illinois; John Howard, President), and the Center on Religion & Society (of New York City; Richard John Neuhaus, President), one part of which is indisputable. Namely that on May 5, when Pastor Neuhaus arrived at his offices on Madison Avenue, he came upon five men engaged in carrying out the contents of that office-physically. It quickly transpired that they were doing so on instructions of the Rockford Institute, whose affiliate the Center on Religion & Society had been. Separatism is in the air this side of the Baltic states, and on May 3, Pastor Neuhaus had made an offer to Rockford suggesting that perhaps the time had come for a friendly divorce. The gentlemen at Rockford replied, alas, much as Don Corleone would have done.

It requires noting that Neuhaus & Company did not go to the press with the story, but Rockford did. What caused further confusion in conservative ranks was that these papers did not quote Rockford's motives in moving as theatrically as it did. Perhaps the reason for it is that one can't easily explain the motive for moving into the offices of genteel folk and acting in that way. Moreover, if civility is an attribute of conservative action, Rockford offended not only the folkways of commercial traffic, but also the mores of human intercourse. If Richard John Neuhaus is a potential thief, a) he should resign his ministry; b) he should cease writing profound theological and political treatises; and c) he should certainly resign his position as religion editor for NATIONAL REVIEW, before we catch him with his hand in the till, and throw him out.

It is tempting, for those who wish to draw the blind on potential disunity within the conservative movement, to whisper that there were no important differences between the New York group within Rockford, and the Chronicles group within Rockford. The problem with that approach is that it is not so. This is not the time to dilate on those differences, but it may be sufficient in documenting that something was awry that one article in the March Chronicles praised Gore Vidal as a "champion" of "American conservatism," and an acccompanying editorial endorsed him as champion "of a distinctly American civilization." To deal in that way with a man that far gone in decadence suggests a paralysis of the critical and moral faculties.

COPYRIGHT 1989 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group