Re: Fr. Hunter, I am sure he is a wonderful priest, and quite orthodox. I do not believe, however, that the founding fathers can be "vindicated." I brought up the controversy regarding Fr. Hunter and his book merely to illustrate that if they are the same priest, then the passage in question in the pamphlet is not particularly a surprise. I don't know what Solange Hertz and Thomas Drolesky say about the Founding Fathers, but I know what certain indisputable facts are. Perhaps I was presumptious in condemning Fr. Hunter's work without having read it, but I trust Fr. Peter Scott, who was the US District Superior, to have made the correct decisions, and I am not so sure that the work would have been "condemned" under ordinary circumstances, but believe that perhaps the refusal of permission stemmed from the controversies of the time, rather than from "doctrinal" reasons. As said, I meant merely to point out that this is not a surprising statement, rather than to pass overall judgement on what I do not know all of the facts on.
I know you weren't attacking Fr. Hunter, I just chose your quote because it was a good sum-up of the ideas.
I'm sure it is the same priest, because he's mentioned the book- I would love to read it...I think, though, he said it actually was published...but I'd have to ask DH as my memory is fuzzy on that one. I believe his viewpoint is not that they were Catholic, but more that the ideas are not specifically antithetical to Catholicism. Incidentally, I'm reading Archbishop Lefebve's "They have uncrowned Him" and he talks about how although a monarchy with elected local government is the ideal, a democracy, or a republic can be in line with Catholic doctrine if certain ideals are kept; he mentions the government of Garcia Moreno as an example.
I personally would like to read it (Fr. Hunter's book, or a similar book by a Traditional author) and any recommendations by Royalcello, because I would like to see something from both sides of the issue from a Traditionalist standpoint. I don't know enough about American history to argue it either way- and I wouldn't even want to try based on the facts I have been exposed to, as I'm sure they're quite wrong.
I mentioned those two because they have both written extensively condemning just about everything about America and its founding, etc. and use it as their "excuse" to basically hide- Dr. Drolesky in particular, has said numerous times that until Russia is conscencrated to Our Lady, nothing can be done politically. I would say its ultimate success is not up to us, but that we have a responsibility to try.
My concern about the reaction to that one paragraph in Fr. Hunter's pamphlet is exactly why I think it needed to be written in the first place- the tendency among Traditionalists to use the debate over the founding of our country to avoid doing anything in it.