A Response to Fr. Jason Charron
When a Uniate priest turns propaganda into doctrine, truth must answer in kind.
Jason Charron is an American priest of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC). Recently, he made an appearance on my favorite Catholic podcast. The entire episode was devoted to repeating Zelensky Administration talking-points.
Now, this isn’t terribly surprising. What shocked me is how Charron spiritualized Ukraine’s propaganda, using the language of moral duty and religious obligation to browbeat Kiev’s critics.
Charron’s arguments need to be answered. So, I’ll begin each section by block-quoting his claims and arguments, in bold. Then I’ll give my response.
On corruption in Ukraine:
If Ukraine was a corrupt country before, and it was—as though our country isn’t—is that those families do not tolerate any kind of thievery because it’s their sons and daughters who are dying. So, if you want an [antidote] to corruption and thievery, have a war in your own homeland. Because once your family starts dying, and they see that your neighbors are stealing from your kids who are on the front line, they’re not going to put up with it.
According to Charron, it’s simply impossible for Ukrainian elites are stealing money from NATO’s aid packages. It must be ruled out prima facie. It’s literally impossible. Couldn’t happen.
What’s funny is that, in the same breath, Charron admits that the Ukraine’s elites are deeply corrupt. Later in the episode, he also makes this admission: “For the past thirty years, Ukraine has done nothing good for its people by privatizing all of these industries. It hasn’t helped its people. It’s helped the oligarchs.”
We’re supposed to believe that same ruling class has suddenly stopped trying to enrich itself at the expense of its people?
Again, this is a fairly minor point. I mention it only to underscore this fact: Charron isn’t even trying to tell the truth. He’s interested in advancing the Ukrainian government’s narrative. That’s all.
On America’s duty to Ukraine:
In 1994, Ukraine had the third largest stockpile of nuclear warheads on planet earth—more than China, more than England and France combined—and they freely gave them up on the power of our word—on the word of the United States, England and Russia—that we want a denuclearized world. We don’t want countries with nukes. “You [i.e., Ukraine] give them over to Russia and, in exchange, the United States and Britain—we’re going to guarantee your territorial integrity.”
The men who made this commitment to Ukraine in 1994 are no longer in power. Their sons have aged out of the draft. So have their grandsons, most likely.
So, what’s the expiration date on this promise? Never?
How long are we obligated to protect Ukraine? Forever?
How many generations of Americans must give their blood and treasure to defend the “territorial integrity” of a country that came into existence in 1991? All of them?
On NATO’s promise to Russia:
The U.S. did initially in 1991 say, “We [i.e., NATO] are not going to expand into your [i.e., Russia’s] backyard.” I think Secretary of State James Baker said that. But here’s the thing: when you play, you sometimes win, you sometimes lose. Russia lost in 1991—the Cold War—and that’s just what happens when you play the game. They tried to conquer the world. World communism. They reaped untold agony in the world because of their ideology.
They never had to pay for it, like the Germans did with the Nuremberg Trials and restitutions. Russians never had to do that. And so the worst thing they had to countenance is the fact that its subject nations, its enslaved peoples, were given sovereignty. And that’s the punishment that they have to accept for everything they did during the communist era: that the nations on their border are sovereign.
Here, Charron admits the following:
- NATO agreed not to expand into countries that border Russia; in exchange, Russia agreed to respect Ukraine’s borders.
- Ukraine actively flirted with the idea of becoming a member of NATO.
- NATO is actively weighing Ukraine’s membership.
- So, Russia invaded Ukraine.
Mind you, NATO is an anti-Russian alliance. That’s the whole reason it exists. Case in point: early in his career, Putin actually asked if Russia could join NATO, but was rejected.
So, Charron’s own admission, the West broke faith with Russia—not the other way around. They moved to extend their anti-Russian military alliance right up to Russia’s borders. And according to Charron, Russia’s supposed to just live with it, because they “played the game” and lost.
So, Russia has a duty to uphold their end of the deal, even though we didn’t uphold ours. That, to Charron, is “just war theory.”
It’s worth noting that the peoples of eastern Ukraine actually want to be part of Russia. Hence, the local population—the “separatist militias”—are fighting alongside the Russian Army.
To recap, then: We must support the Kiev’s government efforts to enforce its claims upon Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea against the will of the local population… for the sake of a series of treaties made 30 years ago… the first of which we have already broken.
On the “Woke Right” claim that Russia is a bastion of conservatism:
Russia is the center of of abortion. In terms of the cultural practice of you don’t have a place on planet earth uh that anywhere rivals China other than than Russia in terms of abortion. So, if you’re trying to turn away from cultural relativism, you don’t get more relativist than saying, “That child in the mother’s womb is just a blob of tissue. Yeah it’s a blob. Oh, it’s a child. Okay. It’s a child, it’s a child; it’s a blob, it’s a blob.” That’s relativism. And Russia is the world leader in abortions.
The most recent data that I was reading that was available is that it’s not unusual to meet women in Russia who’ve had twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen abortions. And that anecdotally aligns with my experience living in the former Soviet Union. It was a contraceptive practice—not to pop a pill, but to kill the child. So, that holds true.
First of all, the country in the former Soviet Union where Charron lived is… Ukraine.
Secondly, he’s right about the abortion rate in Russia. It’s horrific. But I’ve never actually heard someone argue for Russia’s moral superiority.
This is the larger problem with Charron’s argument. Maybe there are some terminally-online Orthobros who are truly pro-Russia. But I’ve never met one.
Put it this way: When was the last time you saw someone with a Ukrainian flag outside their house or a car with a pro-Ukrianian bumper sticker? When was the last time you heard someone praise Zelensky and condemn Putin? Probably in the last couple of days.
Now, when was the last time you saw someone fly a Russian flag outside their house or a car with a pro-Russian bumper sticker? When was the last time you heard someone praise Putin and condemn Zelensky? Probably not once, ever.
I worked for The American Conservative and belong to an Orthodox Church in the Russian tradition. I have never met anyone who supports the Russian invasion of Ukraine (nor do I wish to). So, who exactly is Charron responding to?
The choice isn’t between “pro-Ukraine” and “pro-Russia.” No: it’s between folks like President Trump, who think we should place America’s interests above Ukraine’s; and those like Charron, who believe that Americans have a moral duty to sacrifice our interests for Ukraine’s sake.
And that’s fine! One can legitimately argue that bigger countries have a duty to protect smaller countries. But that’s not what Charron is saying. He’s saying that anyone who doesn’t support Ukraine unconditionally is a bad Christian. Which is the definion of a bad-faith argument.
On Zelensky’s persecution of the Orthodox:
Tucker Carlson had a video on this. I thought, “Oh my gosh, I’m Ukrainian Catholic. I know a lot about what’s going on in Ukraine, and I’ve never heard of this.” I was over there and I interviewed and met some of these people in Kiev, at the Pechersk Cave Monastery, and it’s a half-truth that’s distorted.
There is truth in that there is legislative activity being leveled against the Moscow-backed Orthodox Church. But they forget the reason. The rationale behind it is because over fifty of their priests have been arrested for aiding and abetting Russian military activity on Ukrainian soil. So, those priests who were caught giving intelligence or allowing their churches to be used as storage facilities for Russian munitions and whatnot in in the Far East, they were arrested.
So, in that regard, there is there is stuff happening against the Moscow-affiliated Orthodox Church. But in terms of being persecuted, and and people being persecuted for going to those churches, that’s completely false.
In March 2023, the Kiev Pechersk Lavra—one of the holiest places in global Orthodoxy—was stolen from the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). It was then handed over to a state-backed, schismatic group called the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU). The monk of the Lavra were ordered to break with the UOC and join the OCU. Most refused and were expelled from their home.
This is one example of the Kiev government persecuting the UOC. Here are some more just from the last month:
- On March 25, a UOC parish in Kropyvnytskyi was requisitioned by the Ukrainian military to be used as a garrison.
- On March 28, agents of the Ukrainian government entered the Lavra with power tools in order to desecrate the relics kept in the monastery.
- On April 9, OCU activists attacked a UOC parish in Bukovina with tear gas. Parishioners were beaten with batons and lead pipes.
- On April 12, the Ukrainian Police raided a UOC parish in Verkhni Stanivtsi and turned it over to the OCU.
Who could deny that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is being persecuted?
Charron may be correct that some UOC priests in eastern Ukraine support Russia. But then as we said, virtually everyone in eastern Ukraine supports Russia. They consider themselves Russian, not Ukrainian. So, how does this justify the persecution of Orthodox Christians in Western Ukraine?
Charron’s narrative is especially perplexing as the UOC has officially condemned the Russian invasion. When Russia launched its “special military operation” against Ukraine, Metropolitan Onufriy—primate of the UOC—issued the following statement:
“To be a great regret, Russia has begun military action against Ukraine. At this fateful time, I urge you not to panic, to be courageous and show love for your homeland and one another. I call you first of all to the intensified repentant for Ukraine, for our army and our people. I ask you to forget mutual strife and misunderstandings and to unite with love for God and for our Motherland. At this tragic time, we express special love and support to our soldiers who stand guard over and protect and protect our land and our people. May God bless them and protect them!”
These are not the words of a collaborator.
Also, the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) has absolutely nothing to do with the administration of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The UOC was granted full autonomy in 1990. Those like Charron who continue to identify the UOC with Moscow simply looking for ways to justify the ongoing persecution of Orthodox Christians in Ukraine.
On Putin’s persecution of Eastern Catholics:
If people are concerned about the freedom of the Russian Orthodox-affiliated Church in Ukraine, why the silence . . . on the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Russia, which has never been permitted to exist? In fact, it’s been abolished. Why the silence on uh the Ukrainian Orthodox Church the Ukrainian Catholics and the Ukrainian Protestants in Russian-controlled territory, whose pastors have been killed?
Again, this is a false dichotomy. I’ve never heard anyone try to justify Russia’s persecution of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (nor do I wish to). I have, however, met plenty of folks who justify Ukraine’s persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church—Charron, for instance.
Seriously: can you imagine if a Russian Orthodox priest in the United States tried to justify Russia’s outlawing of the UGCC? Even if he tried, he would never be given a platform. There’s a very good chance his bishop would remove him from active ministry.
And yet Charron is a guest on all the most popular Catholic podcasts in the United States. What’s more, the UGCC has officially endorsed Zelensky’s persecution of the UOC, against the protests of the Trump Administration.
So, Charron’s bishop is probably encouraging him. How shameful.
On Ukraine’s efforts to “nationalize” the Orthodox Church:
There is pressure being put on them to disaffiliate with Moscow. But that’s the very thing that we did here in the United States during the Revolutionary War with the what’s now called the Episcopal Church. It was called the Anglican Church under the King of England. And they [i.e., the Americans] said, “You have to choose your political, your organizational allegiance. It’s either going to be located here or your spiritual tradition where you can come from. . . . If it’s going to be with England then you’ve got consequences.”
So, Charron is openly justifying nativism. I wonder how he’d feel if the United States government told him the same thing: “If you want to be a Catholic priest, that’s fine, but you have to be an American Catholic priest. None of this Ukrainian stuff.”
In any event, this is exactly the argument that Russia uses to justify its persecution of the UGCC.
The Eastern Catholic churches were born in the 16th century, when Catholic countries like Poland and Austria began claiming territory from Russia. Under the Union of Brest, some Russian Orthodox bishops in those countries agreed to form new hierarchies under the Pope. These are known as the Uniate churches. (Today, Uniates generally prefer to be called “Eastern Catholics.”)
The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, to which Charron belongs, is the largest Uniate body in Europe.
Early Uniate leaders persecuted Orthodox Christians who refused to join the UGCC, with backing from their Catholic governments. Priests and laymen were beaten and killed. Churches were stolen or else burned to the ground. The most famous of these Uniate leaders was Josaphat Kuntsevych; in 1867, Pope Pius IX canonized Kuntsevych as a saint in the Catholic Church.
This is why many Russians are hostile the UGCC. It’s also why the Russian government has tended to view the Uniates as agents of a hostile foreign power.
Simply put: what Charron says to the Orthodox is precisely what Putin says to the Uniates. You have to choose between your political allegiance and your spiritual tradition. If you choose your spiritual tradition, there will be consequences.
We might expect to hear such sentiments being espoused by an Eastern European dictator. But an American priest…?
Also, how can the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church complain about its persecution by the Russian government when the UGCC support the Ukrainian Orthodox Church’s persecution by the Ukrainian government? Does Charron really not see the double standard?
Conclusion: Russophobia and Orthophobia
Let me say this frankly: Jason Charron is a Russophobe and an Orthophobe. He is prejudiced against Russians and against Orthodox Christians. In any other context, his hateful rhetoric would (rightly) be condemned.
Again: imagine if an American-born Orthodox priest were to shill so openly for the Kremlin. Image if he repeated, word for word, the lies used by Putin to justify the persecution of Uniates and Protestants. Such a priest would be deplatformed and most likely defrocked. Yet Charron is celebrated.
If he were only one man, I wouldn’t bother responding. But this interview proves how much we have normalized the hatred of certain ethnic and religious groups in our discourse.
Hatred and prejudice in all of its forms are evil. They are fundamentally un-Christian. They are dangerous in themselves. But when we make geopolitical decisions based on these hatreds, we place millions—perhaps billions—of lives in jeopardy.
I was glad to see that the comments on Charron’s interview were overwhelmingly negative. That warmed my heart. Truly. It’s good to know that, by and large, our Catholic friends don’t support Zelensky’s crusade against Orthodoxy. Thank you, guys.
May peace triumph over war. May love triumph over hate. And may Christ triumph over the World. Amen!
Michael Warren Davis is author of The Reactionary Mind. His work has been widely published across prominent Conservative publications. Subscribe to his newsletter, Yankee Athonite on Substack. His views are his own.
