YEREVAN—Hundreds of Armenians gathered at Zvartnots International Airport on June 10 to welcome Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II, voicing support for the spiritual leader amid mounting tensions with Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and his administration.
Upon arrival, the Catholicos led the crowd in prayer before addressing the gathered media and supporters. “This is neither the time nor the place for an interview,” he told reporters, referring them instead to the Supreme Spiritual Council’s earlier statement. “Matters concerning the Church and the clergy are addressed through appropriate channels. I have nothing more to add,” he said.
Turning to the crowd that had come to express solidarity, Karekin II acknowledged the pain caused by recent remarks from the prime minister. “Beloved faithful, we know the statements made by the prime minister have deeply disturbed our children,” he said. “With God’s mercy and our resolve, and without undue emotion or unrest, we must overcome this hardship. Remain strong in your faith, in your love and loyalty to the Church. Let us not allow actions that could endanger our national unity.”
Speaking at Zvartnots, Ishkhan Saghatelyan, Member of Parliament and representative of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) Supreme Council, condemned what he described as a calculated and ongoing campaign by Pashinyan against the Church.
“From the first day he came to power, Nikol Pashinyan has fought against the Church. In the past, he did it covertly, using others. Now, he has launched an open assault,” Saghatelyan said. “We all know his political handwriting, and we all see where he is trying to take this society.”
“This gathering is an expression of solidarity with the Church and with His Holiness. We are here to say that the Church is not alone—and we will not allow it to be treated this way. This is the first clear step in showing unity with the Church,” he continued.
Saghatelyan went further, warning of the danger of remaining silent. “If we want to force this monster back into its lair, we must resist. A firm, collective response is needed.”
Just hours later, however, PM Pashinyan reignited the controversy with a provocative Facebook post, demanding clarification from the Church: “Let the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin clarify: according to the canons of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church, what happens when it is revealed that a celibate clergyman has violated the vow of celibacy and fathered a child after taking the vow?”
Previously, Pashinyan posted another controversial statement on his official Facebook page, calling for the removal of Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II and the reorganization of the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin.
Addressing followers of the Armenian Apostolic Church directly, Pashinyan wrote: “Beloved faithful of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church, as one of you, I call upon you to take concrete steps to free the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin and to organize new catholicosate elections.”
In the post, Pashinyan proposed the formation of a “coordinating group” to oversee what he described as a “renewal” of the Church’s highest leadership. He outlined specific spiritual and moral criteria for participation, stating that prospective members must:
- Believe wholeheartedly in Jesus Christ;
- Have read the Bible from beginning to end at least once;
- Have observed Great Lent at least once in the past five years;
- Pray daily;
- Believe that the proposed renewal aligns with the interests of the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Armenian people and the state.
Pashinyan added that both laypeople and clergy could join the group, but with a caveat for clergy: “In the case of celibate clergy, it is mandatory that they have not violated their vow of celibacy.”
He said he would personally select the group’s first 10 members and noted that while most of the criteria could not be objectively verified, “with God’s help, through dialogue and spiritual discernment, it is possible to see with the eyes of the soul.”
Pashinyan invited interested individuals to apply by email, requesting their full name, phone number and a brief note about their profession or occupation. He emphasized that the group would initially operate quietly in a “working format” before deciding how and when to go public.
“Many will be tempted to speak words of scandal. We will be accused of all kinds of sins,” Pashinyan wrote in closing. “But face all of this with the eyes of your soul. Listen to the voice of our living Lord, Jesus Christ, and act accordingly.”
The post drew immediate backlash from religious leaders, opposition parties and politicians, many of whom called the prime minister’s initiative a blatant attempt to undermine the Church’s independence and interfere in its internal governance.
The ARF Bureau issued a statement of support for the Armenian Apostolic Church, condemning what it describes as an “anti-national and unconstitutional” campaign by Pashinyan’s government against one of Armenia’s most vital institutions. The ARF Bureau sees the campaign as part of a broader effort to weaken national unity and undermine the Church’s constitutional role.
According to the Bureau, the government’s actions are especially dangerous given the broader geopolitical context. Armenia faces existential security threats, including unresolved issues related to the conflict over Artsakh and mounting external pressure. At such a critical time, the ARF argued, national cohesion and solidarity are essential—and targeting the Church undermines both.
The Bureau emphasized that the Armenian Apostolic Church has historically played a unique and irreplaceable role in the preservation of Armenian identity, spirituality and culture. The statement warned that attacking the Church—particularly its elected Patriarch and episcopal leadership—serves not the interests of the Armenian people, but those of hostile external forces. The ARF also pointed to the timing of the attacks, noting that they coincided with the Church’s international advocacy efforts, including its support for the rights of Artsakh Armenians.
It further condemned what it sees as the government’s alignment with hostile rhetoric coming from foreign actors—including inflammatory comments by religious figures in Azerbaijan—and criticized the exploitation of religious freedom to challenge the Church’s constitutionally enshrined status.
The ARF Bureau concluded by reaffirming its unwavering support for the Church and denouncing what it called the government’s “destructive, anti-state agenda.” It pledged the full strength of the global ARF network to stand by the Church in defense of national values, historical continuity, and the spiritual and political integrity of the Armenian people.
Opposition MP Artur Khachatryan of the “Hayastan” parliamentary faction also sharply criticized Pashinyan, accusing him of carrying out a sustained campaign against the Church since assuming office.
Speaking to reporters, Khachatryan claimed that Pashinyan’s recent social media attacks on the Church and Catholicos Karekin II were not isolated incidents, but rather part of a deliberate pattern of antagonism that began years ago.
“Since coming to power, Pashinyan has consistently targeted the Church,” said Khachatryan. “First, there was the ‘New Armenia, New Catholicos’ campaign. Then, just last year, the Catholicos was blocked from entering Sardarabad. There is no level of indignity this administration won’t stoop to.”
The confrontation between the Armenian government and the Church continues to unfold, marking a significant moment in the country’s political and religious landscape.
Hoory Minoyan
Latest posts by Hoory Minoyan (see all)
- Crackdown intensifies ahead of Pashinyan-Aliyev talks in Abu Dhabi - July 9, 2025
- ‘Victory has no alternative’: Armenian authorities raid church, arrest cleric amid escalating tensions - July 2, 2025
- The Region in Brief - July 2, 2025
Is theree no longer ay to get rid of Pashinyan? Posting to social media about his clear desire to undermine the church and the people of Armenia??!! He has no character, no moral compass. Like Donald Trump Pashinyan is taking lessons from Putin on how to become a dictator.
To what end is Pashinyan initiating this controversy? One could propose that this latest attack against the church leadership and organization is nothing more than a distraction from his nefarious actions in the never ending ‘negotiations’ with Azerbaijan and Turkey.
The recent uproar surrounding Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s comments on the Armenian Apostolic Church and its leadership has sparked widespread debate. But while critics paint Pashinyan’s actions as an “anti-Church campaign,” a closer, more honest examination reveals something quite different: a long-overdue push for accountability, transparency, and a redefinition of the relationship between Church and state in Armenia’s democratic evolution.
1. Challenging Power Does Not Equal Persecution
The suggestion that Pashinyan is “attacking” the Church simply because he has asked questions or proposed reforms is both misleading and intellectually dishonest. Democratically elected leaders have a duty to question powerful institutions—religious or otherwise—especially when those institutions hold vast influence over public life but remain largely unaccountable to the people. Inquiring into allegations of clergy violating vows of celibacy is not an “assault,” but a demand for moral integrity from those who preach it.
2. The Church Is Not Above Scrutiny
The Armenian Apostolic Church has historically played an important cultural role in Armenia’s survival and identity, but that legacy should not make it immune from scrutiny. The Church’s leadership, particularly Catholicos Karekin II, has been embroiled in scandals and accusations of opulence, mismanagement, and even complicity in past regimes. Calls for internal reform and leadership renewal do not equate to disrespect—they are essential for restoring credibility and relevance in a society where many, especially youth, have grown disillusioned with the Church’s hierarchy.
3. Pashinyan Is Not Dividing the Nation—He Is Trying to Modernize It
Far from undermining “national unity,” Pashinyan’s proposals seek to modernize Armenia’s institutions, including the Church, to better reflect the values of accountability and democratic governance. His criteria for moral leadership—faith, prayer, fasting, Bible-reading—show reverence for religious tradition. However, he also insists that moral authority requires consistency between preaching and personal conduct. That is a reformist message, not a destructive one.
4. Political Opportunism by the Opposition and Church Allies
Figures like Ishkhan Saghatelyan and Artur Khachatryan—staunch members of opposition blocs are leveraging this situation to score political points. Their narrative of “existential threats” and “foreign meddling” is an attempt to distract from the actual content of Pashinyan’s statements and to preserve a status quo that benefits elite clerical and political figures. Such rhetoric only deepens divisions and clings to a bygone political-religious power structure that many Armenians have grown weary of.
5. Faith Is Not Institutional Loyalty
To be loyal to one’s faith does not mean blind allegiance to flawed religious leadership. Many Armenians remain devout followers of the Apostolic tradition while simultaneously supporting the prime minister’s efforts to clean house within the Church. These are not contradictory positions. In fact, they reflect a population yearning for a Church that leads by moral example rather than clerical entitlement.
6. Let the People Decide
Ultimately, what Pashinyan has proposed is not a state coup against the Church, but a grassroots movement for spiritual and institutional renewal—led by both clergy and laity. He has not imposed new leadership, nor has he used legal coercion. He has simply invited the faithful to participate in a voluntary process of self-reflection and possible reorganization.
If the Church has nothing to hide, it should welcome such introspection. If its leaders truly believe in their moral authority, they should not fear being held to the standards they profess.
The Armenian Apostolic Church must remain a cornerstone of national culture, but it must also evolve. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is not the enemy of the Church—he is the catalyst for its renewal. His critics, cloaked in nostalgia and political self-interest, may prefer the past. But for Armenia to truly move forward—spiritually and politically—it must embrace truth, accountability, and change.
Oh sure !
If it’s a choice between Pashinyan and the Holy Apostolic Church then, I believe, that the Armenian people will choose the Church.
It was the Church that kept the people togerher and the spirit of Armenia live, even Armenia, as a state, disappeared for 800 years.
The Turk lovers will not succeed in separating the people from their Church.
That is a false dichotomy – it is not a choice between Pashinyan and the Church. It is a choice between a Church that is accountable and one that is not.
What has separated the people from the Church for the past few decades has not been “Turk-lovers.” First and foremost, the Church itself alienates its own flock when it preaches (and vows) but does not live celibacy, continence, and a humble life. It cannot be left unsaid that there are many clergy whose primary goal is to preach and live the Gospel. Still, people are not blind, and the Church cannot live its sacred mission by pretending that they are.
The second division comes from the politicization and instrumentalization of the Church, which began in the 50’s with Antelias and the Prelacy. Whatever criticism Pashinyan has earned pales in comparison to the damage caused by the ARF. Yes, we all know that we have had multiple instances of parallel Catholicoi in our history, but that sad fact of geopolitical exigencies and personal aspirations was never a feature of the Armenian Apostolic Church. It is not canonical, biblical, nor traditional for the Church to be split along political lines.
How can the mission of the Gospel be subordinated to a political platform without severe damage to the Church and separation of the people from the Gospel? Those who trumpet the National role of the Church in our history must first look in the mirror and answer that question in front of God and the Nation.
Why is no one addressing the accusations against the Catholicos? This doesn’t seem to be a matter of whether the Catholicos is able to perform his duties. Rather, this is a matter of whether or not he has broken his vow. If so, should he not step down?
I have wondered whether “It was the Church that kept the people together and the spirit of Armenia live, even Armenia, as a state, disappeared for 800 years.” Or whether it is faith of the Armenian people that kept the Armenian Church as an institution “even Armenia, as a state disappeared for 800 years”. But as a matter of the fact such narration is faulse on both accounts, valuing the service’s one over the other. The Armenian Church does not need protection from the Armenian people, nor the Armenian church needs to fear the Armenian people. The question is, who is living up to the expectation of the other? Is it the Armenian Church or the Armenian people? I believe the choice is very personal. I do not think the Armenian church is living up to that expectation and is closing ranks.
This is a fight and vendetta concocted by Pashinyan against the Catholicos and the Armenian Apostolic Church, because they criticised him, and his disastrous rule and policies. That is why, Pashinyan resorts to the vilest slander, smear campaigns and ad hominem insults against Karekin II and the Church, which is unheard of since the Bolsheviks. Pashinyan can’t stand any criticism towards himself and his policies, and anyone who does so, needs to be silenced, and anyone who he regards as a threat, especially so. The apologists for Pashinyan, also here in the comment section, don’t get it, that Pashinyan doesn’t want any opposition and challenge to himself and his rule, be it opposition politicians and political parties, the independent media, NGOs, the Armenian Apostolic Church and ordinary Armenian citizens.
The people of Armenia elected Nikol Pashinyan to lead the Republic of Armenia three times under extraordinary circumstances. The first was by parliamentary election on May 8, 2018. The people re-elected him in general election on December 2018. The citizens of Armenia elected him again on June 2021, six months after his resignation after the disastrous 44 days war Armenia lost under his watch. Nikol Pashinyan and his government rule by the consent of the Armenian people and I support that. If that is considered Pashinyan apologist, so be it. No, I get things as well as anyone else does.
Pashinyan and his actions are indefensible. His “democratic credentials” were a ruse and turned out to be a farce, once he came to power and amassed power. He not only emulated his immediate predecessors Sargsyan and Kocharyan, he has exceeded them and has turned out to be worse than them. Electing a man, who is not only incompetent, but downright reckless and shortsighted, is leading Armenia to disaster. Pashinyan (including his clique) is the least qualified, most unprincipled and most unpatriotic of Armenia’s leader to date. Pashinyan is like a product that has gone bad and has passed its expiry date, but which many people still knowingly use, even though they know it is bad for their health. Reelecting him after the disastrous Second Artsakh War and clinging to him, after all that has happened, just proves my point. If Pashinyan doesn’t go, things will continue to go downhill for Armenia, not become better. He has been in power for seven years now, things have not improved and will not improve under him. It is time to try new leaders.
This situation is an ongoing tragedy, drops of pain each week.
Anyone: Is there an alternative” leader” in sight ?
Who wants Pashinyan’s job ?
We have powerful enemies working together.
We have “friends” who speak, but we need action…not simply ongoing statements of “condemn” with no action. Words evaporate.
Words without deeds are ongoing signals for enemy encouragement.
And now, we have the strategy of distraction by attacking the church,
Daily doses of tragedy.
Pashinyan and his so called civic contract party must go. The sooner the better.