Armenia’s church-state dispute moves to the international arena 

YEREVAN — The confrontation between Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government and the Armenian Apostolic Church intensified this week. 

On Sept. 24, the Information and Public Relations Center of the Office of the Prime Minister published a report titled “On the Crisis That Has Emerged in the church as a Result of the Actions of the de facto Head of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church and a Number of Senior Clergy, and on Ways to Resolve It.” The center said the report was prepared pursuant to the Armenian government’s 2026-2031 program and on the direct instruction of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. The document identifies 16 issues that it describes as evidence of a crisis within the Armenian Apostolic Church.

Among them are alleged violations of clerical celibacy, arbitrary disciplinary practices and defrocking of clergy, financial opacity, misuse of church property, nepotism in clerical appointments, politicization of the altar, foreign influence and institutional failures related to church governance. The report also refers to the failure to convene the National Ecclesiastical Assembly for 27 years, the absence of a unified church constitution and divisions within dioceses in the Armenian diaspora. It concludes with a five-step proposed road map for the church’s institutional crisis.

According to Forum 18, the government program approved on Aug. 20 contains a chapter titled “Spiritual Security” that identifies the removal or retirement of Catholicos Karekin II as an objective. The program states that the government seeks reform of the church, prevention of its politicization and the election of a catholicosal vicar through established church procedures.

Pashinyan says the church has been “seized”

Several hours after the report was published, Pashinyan addressed it publicly. The prime minister said the report had been prepared on his instructions and that reviewing the document had led him to conclude that the situation within the Armenian Apostolic Church was more serious than he had initially believed.

Advertisement

Pashinyan said the report showed that “The Armenian Apostolic Church has been seized by Ktrich Nersisyan and a group of clergy and laypeople who support him.” He urged the public to read the report and said the government would return to the subject.

Mother See rejects government report

The Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin responded to the government report, rejecting its findings and challenging the state’s involvement in church affairs. In its statement, the Mother See described the report as unconstitutional, anti-canonical and unlawful in both its content and form.

Church officials said the document relied on accusations previously circulated through social media and news outlets and characterized its publication by a government body as interference in the internal life of the Armenian Apostolic Church. The Mother See reiterated the position adopted by the Episcopal Assembly earlier this year that reform within the church cannot be imposed through political pressure or state intervention.

Christian Solidarity International rejects the report

Christian Solidarity International entered the dispute with a statement rejecting the government report “in its entirety.” CSI is an international Christian human rights organization focused on religious liberty and human dignity. The organization said the authorship, methodology and motives behind the Armenian government report undermined its conclusions and argued that the document conflicted with the principle of church autonomy under Armenian and international law. CSI also disputed the government’s description of events inside the Armenian Apostolic Church.

The organization accused the Pashinyan administration of conducting a campaign against the church. CSI’s statement specifically challenged the government’s decision to have an institution within the Prime Minister’s Office evaluate the church’s internal condition and propose mechanisms for addressing it.

Church dispute reaches the Council of Europe

The confrontation received international attention again on Sept. 28 during a session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in Strasbourg. During a debate concerning Armenia’s June parliamentary elections, British parliamentarian Sir Edward Leigh raised the mistreatment of the Armenian Apostolic Church.

Leigh said the church faced an “unprecedented threat” from Armenia’s government and accused the Pashinyan administration of abandoning the boundary between church and state. “Armenian governments have never before persecuted the church or tried to establish control over it. But the current government is putting bishops in custody and bringing charges against the Catholicos. Whatever the truth about these accusations may be, the situation itself raises serious questions. For Armenia and its international reputation, especially in the eyes of Christians like me, a situation in which bishops are held in custody looks extremely negative. I believe the Council of Europe should speak out more clearly and consistently on this issue,” Leigh said.

Civil Contract lawmaker Hripsime Grigoryan, a member of Armenia’s delegation to PACE, responded during her own intervention. Grigoryan called Leigh’s remarks regarding the Armenian Apostolic Church “very ill-informed.” “In fact, what the Armenian government and the Armenian state are doing is protecting the church,” Grigoryan told the Assembly.

Grigoryan said the government’s position concerned the activities of the person currently serving as Catholicos. She alleged that the Catholicos was directly involved in unlawful actions aimed at overthrowing the Armenian state. Grigoryan also alleged that the Catholicos’s brother was “an agent, an international agent,” and said her assertion was supported by facts and documents. She did not complete that portion of her remarks before being interrupted by the chair.

PACE President Elisabetta Gardini, who was presiding over the session, stopped Grigoryan and instructed her to remain on the subject of the debate. Grigoryan then continued by addressing criminal cases involving Armenian bishops. “The bishops are not arrested for being bishops,” she said. Grigoryan said criminal cases had been opened against them and emphasized that courts, rather than politicians, would determine the outcome.

She described the cases as involving allegations of terrorist acts against Armenian civilians, referring to the criminal proceedings against Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan and 17 other individuals. 

Criticism following the PACE debate

ARF Bureau member and chair of the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Human Rights and Public Affairs Lilit Galstyan, criticized Grigoryan’s remarks, saying that statements made by elected officials — particularly on international platforms — carry significant public, legal and political responsibility.

Galstyan argued that Grigoryan’s intervention at PACE contained “misleading statements” and claims that, in her view, were inconsistent with principles of human rights, human dignity and the presumption of innocence. Galstyan specifically referred to Grigoryan’s statement that Catholicos Karekin II was “directly engaged in unlawful actions towards overthrowing the state of Armenia.”

According to Galstyan, that characterization did not correspond to the criminal proceedings currently brought against the Catholicos. She argued that the charges against Karekin II relate to alleged obstruction of the enforcement of a judicial act rather than actions aimed at overthrowing the state.

She also criticized Grigoryan’s statement regarding the Catholicos’s brother, whom the Civil Contract lawmaker described as “an agent, an international agent,” saying the phrase did not represent a recognized criminal-law category and that no judicial finding had established such a designation.

Regarding the criminal proceedings involving Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan and 17 other individuals, Galstyan argued that the defendants had been charged under provisions relating to the alleged preparation of terrorism and alleged preparation to usurp state power, rather than with carrying out completed terrorist acts. Galstyan said the distinction was significant when discussing ongoing criminal proceedings and the presumption of innocence.

Galstyan further argued that Grigoryan’s statements at an international forum should not be viewed as personal opinions because she was speaking as a representative of Armenia’s governing political majority. She said that such statements could affect public perceptions of senior clergy before court proceedings had concluded and accused the government of damaging the reputation of the Armenian Apostolic Church and interfering with its autonomy.

The government has rejected accusations that it is attacking the church, arguing that its actions are aimed at addressing alleged institutional problems and ensuring accountability within the Armenian Apostolic Church.

Criticism has also come from within the Armenian Apostolic Church. Fr. Gabriel Vardanyan said the Catholicos is elected by the National Ecclesiastical Assembly and consecrated according to the church’s canonical tradition, making the position fundamentally different from that of a secular officeholder. “The Catholicos of All Armenians is not simply an ‘elected leader,’” Vardanyan said. “He is a Patriarch elected by the church, consecrated through the sacred order of the church and called to serve within the Church of Christ.”

He argued that questions concerning the tenure of the Catholicos therefore fall within the authority of the church’s canonical institutions. Vardanyan also warned that political pressure over church leadership could establish a broader precedent for outside intervention in ecclesiastical affairs. “If today an attempt is made to remove a Catholicos elected and consecrated by the church through street pressure, political pressure or public demand, tomorrow the same mechanism could be applied to any matter concerning the church,” he said.