German Professor Bremer: the AUCCRO Cannot Be Considered All-Ukrainian Without the UOC
Honorary Professor of the University of Münster Thomas Bremer stated that the removal of the UOC has deprived the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches of full representativeness.
Honorary Professor of the Department of Church History and Eastern Christian Studies at the University of Münster (Germany) Thomas Bremer has published an article in which he questioned whether the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations (AUCCRO) lives up to its name following the effective removal of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from its activities. The article was published on the Public Orthodoxy platform.
According to Bremer, when it was established in 1996, the AUCCRO was conceived as an interdenominational platform for developing a common position among religious communities on matters concerning their relationship with the state. It included the largest denominations in Ukraine, including the UOC.
The author notes that the situation changed in 2023, when the Council supported the state's actions against the UOC. According to him, the organization's own rules were violated in order to achieve this. In particular, in September 2023, the UOC was due to assume the chairmanship of the Council in accordance with its statutes; however, without the UOC's participation or notification, the right of chairmanship was transferred to another religious organization.
Bremer points out that the UOC formally remains a member of the AUCCRO but does not receive invitations to its meetings. In the scholar's view, this practice calls into question the representative character of statements published in the name of the Council. He draws attention to the fact that, according to the AUCCRO's statutes, decisions must be adopted unanimously by all its members. For this reason, the professor notes, documents published as "statements of Council members" cannot be regarded as the position of all religious organizations in Ukraine if the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was not involved in their adoption.
The professor also asserts that some representatives of religious organizations have privately expressed dissatisfaction with the current situation but are afraid to speak out openly. According to him, state bodies possess mechanisms of pressure on religious communities, in particular through decisions related to the mobilization of clergy.
Bremer separately draws attention to the overseas visits of AUCCRO delegations. In his view, Western partners should take into account that such delegations do not represent all religious communities in Ukraine, since the largest of them — the Ukrainian Orthodox Church — has effectively been excluded from the Council's work.
As an example, the author cites the recent visit of a World Council of Churches delegation to Kyiv. He notes that, although the AUCCRO's website reported a meeting with representatives of the World Council of Churches, the UOC was not invited to it. At the same time, representatives of the World Council of Churches held a separate meeting with representatives of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
In conclusion, Bremer writes that adherence to the principles of the rule of law must extend not only to state institutions but also to the activities of interreligious organizations, especially in the context of Ukraine's European integration. In his conviction, Western church and civil society organizations should take into account the circumstances under which one of Ukraine's largest religious communities has effectively been excluded from participation in the work of a body that presents itself as all-Ukrainian.
As the UOJ reported, an AUCCRO delegation discussed Ukraine's European integration with EU deputies.
