A correction/clarification to my last Neuhaus post

I've been e-mailing back and forth with my old boss, National Review editor Rich Lowry, this afternoon about a claim I made in my last post on Richard John Neuhaus. In it, I wrote that RJN prevailed on William F. Buckley to get me to stop writing about the Catholic sex abuse scandal. Rich tells me that never happened -- that he's sure RJN complained to Bill about my writing, but that Bill never asked him to pull me off the story. Rich did, as he and I agree, ask me to scale back my writing, because they believed I'd gotten too close to the story -- a judgment I didn't agree with at the time, but which I fully credit today. But Rich is adamant that no pressure at all came from Bill to suppress my writing.

I told Rich that I was told at the time that RJN had gotten Bill to call me off. I never took this up with Rich back then, because I was worried that I'd offended WFB, and was going to lose my job. I can't remember precisely who told me that RJN got WFB to yank me off the beat, though I have a pretty good idea who it was; if I'm correct (and I'm going to ask this person over the weekend), then this person was in a position to know, which is why I didn't pursue it further. However, I agree with Rich's supposition that my source could have been aware that RJN had complained about my writing to Bill, then seen that I was asked by Rich to back off the Catholic story, and concluded "reasonably but falsely" (Rich's phrase) that RJN had gotten WFB to curtail my coverage of the Catholic Church.

That probably sounds like a lot of inside baseball to you, but it's all to say that I want to withdraw my earlier claim that Fr. Neuhaus had gotten Bill Buckley to pull me off the Church scandal beat. I genuinely believed that he had, but I am pleased to learn today from Rich that Bill never asked him to take me off the story, and I apologize to Rich and to my readers for the confusion.

UPDATE: Yesterday I e-mailed the person whom I recalled told me that RJN got WFB to order me off the story. This person was very much in a position to know this sort of thing, in the Neuhaus-Buckley world, which is why I didn't question it at the time. My source e-mailed back this morning. It turns out that Rich was right -- my source "reasonably but falsely" reached that conclusion. I am very relieved to learn after all these years that Bill did not order me to quit writing about the scandal, despite RJN's complaints, and again, I'm sorry for saying yesterday that he had. The error was unintentional. Anyway, I hope today Bill and Fr. Neuhaus are enjoying each other's company today at the heavenly feast, and that we'll all get there with them in our time.