The Uniate's Dilemma

Photo: UOJ-USA

Fr. Jason Charron is an American-born priest of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Back in April, I wrote a column about his appearance on Pints With Aquinas, which he mostly spent repeating the Kyiv government’s talking-points about the War in Ukraine. 

Earlier this week, Charron published an essay at Crisis Magazine (which I used to edit) on the recent summit between Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I and Pope Leo XIV. The piece was fascinating, balanced, and insightful. It was not uncritical of the Orthodox; to my mind, however, this is an advantage. Charron is not willing to sell out his own Church’s traditions in the “rush to embrace”, a stance that we must respect.

Still, it left much to be desired—both from an Orthodox and from a Catholic perspective. 

Unity in Diversity?

Charron begins by describing the Catholic ethos:

The word katholikos, “according to the whole,” signifies a church structure that is multinational, centripetal, and missionary. Catholicism’s theological framework presumes a universal structure: the Church’s systems (magisterial, sacramental, and canonical) possess a transposable form capable of inhabiting every culture without losing coherence…

This is the essence of Catholic universality: a sacramental confidence that grace can assume any cultural form while perfecting it from within (grace does not destroy nature but perfects it). The Catholic vision thus looks outward, presuming the world’s capacity to be evangelized and integrated into a single, coherent whole. Its genius lies in a missionary elasticity that assumes no cultural monopoly on truth.

He then goes on to describe the Orthodox ethos:

The Orthodox way of life is one of incarnational particularity: the Gospel’s deep absorption within a people’s language, symbols, and historical memory. Ever notice how traditionally Orthodox countries like Romania and Ukraine are still religious even after years of Marxist-Leninism? When Orthodoxy enters a nation, it does not impose a prefabricated structure; it indwells that nation, sanctifying its rhythms and imagination forever. Thus, the Greek, Ukrainian, or Ethiopian Churches embody not mere variations but distinct modes of participation in one Orthodox consciousness—a living spiritual awareness expressed through liturgy, iconography, and monastic life. 

Charron then contrasts the two: 

The Catholic impulse toward unity in diversity often misreads Orthodox stability as insularity, while Orthodoxy can perceive Catholic adaptability as volatility… Catholic adaptability without Orthodox depth risks superficiality; Orthodox rootedness without Catholic expansiveness risks stasis.”

I have two objections to Charron’s characterization.

First, he describes the Catholic Church as “adaptable” in a way that suggests the Orthodox Church is not adaptable. And yet his description of Orthodox inculturation makes it sound highly adaptable. Which, of course, it is!

Second, when Charron speaks of the ability to “assume any cultural form,” he is presumably talking about the twenty-three Eastern Catholic (or Uniate) churches. Yet it should be noted that the diversity of rites in the Catholic Church did not evolve organically. Just the opposite. 

“Hard” Latinization and Uniatism

For many centuries, Rome was deeply intolerant of liturgical diversity. In the 13th century, when the Paleologos emperors converted to Catholicism, they asked that the Greek Church be allowed to keep its unique liturgical rites. The pope at the time, Nicholas III, refused. “Unity of faith does not permit diversity in its confessors or its confessions,” he wrote in a letter to Emperor John VIII. This is why, when Constantinople fell, only the Roman Rite of the Mass was celebrated in Hagia Sophia. 

I refer to this as Hard Latinization: the popes' attempt to impose the Roman Rite of the Mass upon all Christian peoples, everywhere in the world.

Likewise, the Council of Trent (1545) sought to impose a standardized form of the Roman Rite upon the whole Catholic Church. Most local customs, or uses, were suppressed. A few venerable old rites were allowed to survive, but they were strictly circumscribed. For instance, the Mozerabic Rite was allowed to survive; however, it may only be celebrated in a few parishes in Toledo, Spain.

Then, in the 16th century, opinion began to shift. Rome finally began to realize it was unlikely that the Eastern churches would be absorbed into the Latin Church, Nicholas III-style. So, they began to receive Orthodox bishops into their communion while allowing them to keep their own liturgical traditions (at least in theory. More on that in a moment). All they had to do was kiss the pope’s ring.

By and large, these Eastern Catholic churches were brought into submission through bribery, violence, or a combination of the two. Consider, for example, Charron’s own Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

The UGCC evolved out of the Ruthenian Uniate Church. Among the Ruthenian Uniate Church's "founding fathers"—its George Washington, so to speak—was a man named Josaphat Kuntsevich. The Uniate leadership named Kuntsevich archbishop of Polotsk from 1618. He was what Ukrainians call a “raider." Armed with a royal charter, he seized Orthodox churches and monasteries against the will of clergy and parishioners. The Uniate raiders banned Orthodox priests on pain of death, left infants unbaptized and the dead unburied, and ordered recently buried Orthodox corpses exhumed and thrown to dogs.

Even Polish chancellor Lew Sapieha, a devout Catholic and supporter of Uniatism, condemned Kuntsevich’s “cruelty” and “reckless violence”. He warned that Kuntsevich’s actions endangered the Commonwealth and pleaded with the Ruthenian authorities to restrain him. Undeterred, Kuntsevich obtained royal troops to crush resistance, provoking the 1623 Vitebsk uprising, which ended in his death. The Commonwealth government punished the Orthodox for defending themselves against Kuntsevich by unleashing a wave of bloody reprisals. 

Following his death, Rome canonized Kuntsevich as a martyr. He remains the principal saint of the UGCC. In fact, Charron’s eparchial cathedral is named after Kuntsevich.

This how the Catholic Church came to celebrate five different liturgical rites. Rome expropriated these liturgies, churches, etc., using rather dubious means. And this, after spending centuries attempting to suppress virtually all liturgical diversity in the Christian world!

And let us emphasize this point: these diverse liturgical expressions were, by and large, expropriated from the Orthodox. These various rites came about thanks to the Orthodox Church's ability to affect "the Gospel’s deep absorption within a people’s language, symbols, and historical memory." The Orthodox planted the seeds of inculturation; Rome stole the fruits.

That, ironically, includes Charron's own UGCC. Had Rome succeeded in absorbing the entire Orthodox Church at any point between the 12th and 16th centuries (as it tried relentlessly to do), the Byzantine Rite—which Fr. Jason celebrates—would have been suppressed.

It's only because the Orthodox refused to kiss the papal ring that Eastern Catholics like Charron are allowed to celebrate the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom today. That's something to ponder.

“Soft” Latinization and Ecumenism

As we said, Rome promised the Uniates that they would be allowed to keep their liturgical traditions if they submitted to the pope. And yet, time and again, it went back on this promise. The Vatican has repeatedly imposed modifications to the Eastern Catholic liturgies—modifications that were designed to bring them into conformity with the Roman Rite. This is what scholars refer to as ”Latinization”. However, I’ll use the term Soft Latinization to distinguish it from the Hard Latinization of Nicholas III, et al.

The Eastern Catholic body most affected by Soft Latinization is, arguably, the UGCC. For centuries, the Uniates were forced to use the filioque when reciting the Creed. They were required to develop a “Low Liturgy” comparable to the Low Mass of the Roman Rite. They began to perform Eucharistic processions and even to practice Eucharistic Adoration. To this day, it is customary in many UGCC parishes for babies to receive Holy Communion at their baptism, per the Orthodox custom—but then to abstain from the Eucharist until they are seven or eight, and then receive a Latin-style "First Communion."

A major point of conflict was the ordination of married priests. Even in the late 18th century, the American Catholic bishops led by Abp. John Ireland banned married Uniate priests from exercising their faculties—and did so with the Vatican’s full support. This, of course, inspired St. Alexis of Wilkes-Barre to lead many thousands of his fellow Eastern Catholics back into the Orthodox Church. And here's the thing: despite the backlash, Eastern Catholic bishops in the United States were not allowed to ordain married men until 2014!

It’s true: recent popes have taken a much more generous view of Eastern liturgical customs. They have even encouraged “de-Latinization” (leading, ironically, to a pro-Latin backlash in the UGCC). Yet, as we have seen, this is a comparatively recent phenomenon. It is a sudden and dramatic break with Rome’s policy of Latinization, both in its “Hard” and “Soft” varieties. Yet, as we have seen, this is a comparatively recent phenomenon. It is a sudden and dramatic break with Rome’s policy of Latinization, both in its “Hard” and “Soft” varieties.

In 1993, representatives of the Catholic and Orthodox churches issued a joint statement called “Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion”—more commonly known as the Balamand declaration. It is worth quoting at length:

The union of certain communities with the See of Rome and brought with them, as a consequence, the breaking of communion with their Mother Churches of the East. This took place not without the interference of extraecclesial interests. In this way Oriental Catholic Churches came into being. And so a situation was created which has become a source of conflicts and of suffering in the first instance for the Orthodox but also for Catholics. 

Whatever may have been the intention and the authenticity of the desire to be faithful to the commandment of Christ: “that all may be one” expressed in these partial unions with the See of Rome, it must be recognized that the reestablishment of unity between the Church of the East and the Church of the West was not achieved and that the division remains, embittered by these attempts.

Balamand concludes that “this form of ‘missionary apostolate’ described above, and which has been called ‘uniatism,’ can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking.”

In other words: Rome accepts that the formation of the Eastern Catholic churches was spurred by political interests and succeeded only in deepening the Great Schism. The Vatican will no longer encourage Orthodox Christians to become Uniates. Instead, it will seek “perfect and total communion” between Catholics and the Orthodox, “which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love.”

Beyond Uniatism

Fr. Jason Charron, like many Catholic apologists, points to the Uniate churches as proof of Catholicism’s “catholic-ness”: its authentic, all-embracing universality.

Basically, Charron is saying: The Catholic Church has the secret for achieving “unity in diversity." And yet the Vatican itself replies: No, we don’t. 

Rome admits that the “diversity” of liturgical forms found in the Catholic Church was not worth the cost—i.e., the violent tearing of Eastern Christian “communities” from their “Mother Churches" at the behest of “extraecclesial interests.” 

Now, why am I writing all this? Is it just to rub Charron’s nose in some of the nastier bits of Church history? Not at all! Rather, it’s because Fr. Jason and I both desire true unity between Catholics and the Orthodox. And, as Rome itself acknowledges, unity can’t be achieved unless we’re willing to acknowledge past failures and abandon failed ecclesiologies.

So, if Charron (or any other Catholic) would point to Uniatism as an example of Catholicism’s “expansiveness,” of its ability to “assume any cultural form,” we must respectfully but forcefully disagree. This position has a certain rhetorical value for online polemicists; however, it has no institutional support within the Catholic Church, nor any basis in historical fact. Certainly, the Orthodox will not accept it as legitimate grounds for a reunion with Rome.

Read also