That didn’t come out as I intended, but I think that my meaning is obvious.

I do have a question concerning your critique of the Founding Fathers. You protest, I think rightly, against attempts by Catholics in these days to create isolated cultural enclaves. You are against the “Little House on the Prairie” temptation of certain traditionalists. (I cannot help thinking of the rumors I have heard about St. Mary’s, KS, when I read this, though of course I cannot infer that this is what you had in mind.)

I do wonder, then, about the effect of some of the rhetoric directed against the Founding Fathers. If we are not to create balkanized enclaves, it seems we should participate to a greater or lesser degree in American culture, to the extent we can do so without moral compromise. You critique the Founding Fathers, and quite rightly, on their treatment of religion. However, what troubles me is some of the dichotomous language in which these critiques are framed. In one of your articles, I believe you propose a choice between the Founding Fathers and the Fathers of the Church. On matters of the Faith, this dichotomy makes sense. On other matters, however, it does not. What do the Church Fathers say about divisions of powers, branches of government, civil vs. military authority, federalism, how a bill becomes a law, etc., etc.? The Fathers are right to say that God is the source of legitimate government, but they do not say much, to my knowledge, about types of government. For that, we as Americans look to the Founding Fathers, and it seems only right. For all of the problems in America, we still rely on the Founders for what is right and good, too. It seems that a rhetorical stance that focuses primarily on the mistakes and failures of the Fathers will close off the critic to the broader American culture. Despite all of Locke’s rot, there is more to the Anglo-American political system than Locke, and some of the good we have we owe to Locke, who, blind pig that he was, occasionally found an acorn. A Catholic is bound to honor his atheist, unwed parents — they raised him, and brought him up according to their lights. I propose that we cherish the same attitude toward the Fathers. They established our country, and we should be circumspect in addressing their errors — not because we honor worldly sinners, but because we honor our forefathers, even should they be worldly sinners.