In recent times, a troubling inversion of roles has become evident in Armenia’s public life. While the Government seeks to draw a strict dividing line to limit the Armenian Apostolic Church’s ability to speak on matters related to the nation’s destiny, there is simultaneously a growing perception of executive involvement in the internal affairs of the country’s oldest and most representative religious institution.

It is necessary to recall a historical reality that at times generates discomfort in official circles: the Armenian Apostolic Church has been a national institution. During the long periods in which the Armenian state disappeared from the political map as a result of imperial domination and conquest, the Church was not only a spiritual refuge, but also played an essential role in preserving the language, cultural continuity, collective survival, and national identity.

The argument of “non-interference”

Invoking the principle of secularism, the authorities maintain that the Church should not intervene in debates concerning security, territory, or sovereignty. It is often stated that “the Church should not engage in politics.” However, this position raises questions when applied to an institution that historically assumed fundamental responsibilities related to the survival of the nation.

When the future of Armenia and Artsakh becomes a matter of profound public concern, the Church considers it part of its historical and ethical mission to express its perspective if it believes that certain decisions taken by the civil authorities may affect the general interest. In its broadest sense, politics involves the stewardship of the common good—an المجال in which the Church has maintained a continuous presence throughout the centuries.

Asymmetry of power and institutional tensions

Concern has emerged within society regarding developments in which the Prime Minister meets with certain religious figures under initiatives presented as processes of ecclesiastical “renewal.” These dynamics are perceived by many observers as a unilateral form of involvement in the Church’s internal life.

Likewise, public concern has arisen over the participation of members of the clergy in judicial proceedings conducted within a politically sensitive context, as well as over the emergence of public questioning related to aspects of the personal life of Catholicos Karekin II and his religious commitments. Such circumstances contribute to an atmosphere of polarization and institutional tension.

In this context, it is necessary to underline several fundamental considerations:

The State and the limits of its authority:
In a democratic state governed by the rule of law, no civil government has the competence to intervene in the internal structure, hierarchy, or discipline of a religious institution. Even where questions arise regarding the private conduct of members of the clergy, such matters belong to the sphere of canonical and spiritual judgment, not to that of executive authority. The involvement of state mechanisms in internal ecclesiastical debates is widely perceived as a violation of the principle of institutional autonomy.

The legitimacy of the Church:
By virtue of its national character and historical trajectory, the Armenian Apostolic Church enjoys a form of social legitimacy that transcends electoral cycles. Its Supreme Spiritual Council, unlike unipersonal executive structures, is a collegial body composed of both clergy and lay representatives, reflecting the pluralism of the Armenian community. This body alone holds the authority to examine the conduct of its members and to address the Church’s internal affairs.

Conclusion

Attempts to reduce the Church to a merely ritual role are perceived by many as an effort to deprive society of one of its principal moral reference points. A context in which civil authorities involve themselves in religious matters, resort to judicial mechanisms in politically sensitive disputes, and publicly question the highest ecclesiastical leadership, while at the same time calling for neutrality or silence, risks undermining institutional trust and social cohesion.

Armenia needs a Church capable of responsibly raising its voice when the collective path becomes uncertain. Historical experience reminds us that governments are, by nature, temporary; the State may pass through different phases; but spiritual institutions and the Nation endure over time.