You may see two battles that are unrelated, but I do not. So...
As for our government, the political philosophy which serves as the foundation thereof is radically flawed. Go figure, as the men who came up with the various ideas were rather disordered, intellectually and morally. No, this is not a swipe at the founding fathers, but is in reference to men like Rousseau, et alii.
While there is nothing wrong, in and of itself, with representative government, whatever form of government we choose must be conformed to reason and the dictates of what has been revealed. The government of the USA does not so conform -- and it never has. To be fair, there are some excellent ideas mixed in with those that are problematic. Such is life in the vale of tears, but it does no good to act as if the flaws are not present. In this case, they are radical and fatal to the whole, however much good it contains.
Consider your household when your children were young: Would you ever consider asking them what they think the rules should be? That would be insane, yet that is the idea involved in 'popular sovereignty', 'consent of the governed', etc. Just as such a method of governing a home would be absurd, so it is absurd when applied to a nation -- which, in a very real sense, is just a really big home.
While I cannot confirm what so-called "radical Catholics" would say, it matters not...as there are none involved in the present discussion.
FWIW, defending Jefferson, for example, against detraction or calumny, is not actually related to defending the principles of US government. This is plain, yet, oddly enough, when Matto tried to kindly point out that he thought you might be unwittingly and innocently confounding the two, you said he was wrong, etc. Now, you are, for whatever reason, making it look as if his initial comment was not so far fetched.