The Armenian government’s confrontation with the Armenian Apostolic Church has entered a new phase marked by judicial and extra-judicial actions, travel restrictions on senior clergy, and allegations of coercion inside the military chaplaincy, prompting warnings from international human‑rights advocates, legal experts, and diaspora institutions that the Armenian state is crossing constitutional and democratic red lines [1,5,6,12,19].
What began as political criticism of Catholicos Karekin II has, according to critics, evolved into a coordinated campaign using courts, investigators, and administrative pressure to influence the Church’s internal governance, restrict its leadership’s movement, and weaken its institutional independence [1,6,15,16].
Travel Bans Attempt to Derail International Church Governance
The most concrete, recent escalation occurred from late January to February 2026, when Armenian authorities imposed travel bans on senior clerics days before a scheduled Bishops’ Assembly in Austria.
According to CivilNet, investigators barred six bishops from the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin and the Secretary of the Supreme Spiritual Council from leaving the country, citing charges related to the alleged obstruction of a court ruling tied to the defrocking of Gevorg Saroyan, a former Bishop aligned with the government’s reform agenda [19]. On February 14, the Prosecutor’s office also imposed a travel ban on Catholicos Karekin II and opened a criminal case against him. Lawyers and Church representatives say the case intrudes directly into canonical matters traditionally handled within ecclesiastical structures [15,17, 22].
Diaspora and Church sources link the move to earlier disruptions of episcopal governance. A planned December 2025 assembly in Armenia was postponed, they say, after a majority of Bishops from global dioceses reported feeling unsafe amid ongoing pressure and detentions [1,2,12]. Subsequent assemblies were relocated abroad due to what Church officials describe as the absence of credible immunity guarantees for participants [2].
Military Chaplaincy Drawn into Political Dispute
At the same time, the Armenian government’s intrusions into church matters have reached into the Armenian Armed Forces, where the Military Chaplaincy had been entrusted to the Church since the late 1990s.
In January 2026, OC Media reported that Armenian Army Chaplains said commanders had pressured them to sign statements supporting the Prime Minister’s repressive Church agenda, including calls for the Catholicos’s resignation [5]. The Defense Ministry denied wrongdoing, while the Mother See confirmed that complaints had been received.
Additional accounts cited by diaspora commentators noted that some chaplains were offered inducements or subjected to threats, raising concerns that state administrative resources were being used to mobilize clergy against their own spiritual leadership [4,9,11]. Church officials responded that the army should remain neutral and outside political or ecclesiastical struggles [5].
As of February 1, Defense Minister Suren Papikyan decreed the Chaplaincy system dissolved and Chaplaincy appointments terminated. [20]
International Watchdogs Frame a “Religious‑Freedom Crisis”
International advocacy organizations have increasingly framed these confrontations as part of larger and more worrisome religious‑freedom and rule‑of‑law issues in Armenia.
In a Nov. 22, 2025 briefing on Capitol Hill, Christian Solidarity International (CSI) warned that Armenia was witnessing a “systematic state‑led campaign to undermine, divide, and persecute” its national church, calling demands for the Catholicos’s resignation a “flagrant assault on religious freedom” [6]. A subsequent CSI analysis of the imprisonment of Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan argued that criminal prosecutions were being used to silence dissenting clergy [7].
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, in a Dec. 28, 2025 statement, expressed “deep concern” over arrests, intimidation, and, what it described as, the selective targeting of Church institutions. The Institute warned that attacks on the Church risk eroding a core pillar of Armenian identity and highlighted the removal of the Church‑linked Shoghakat TV channel from the national digital package by the Armenian government as part of that pattern [16].
Legal Experts and Journalists Warn of Constitutional Overreach
Legal analysts argue that the Armenian government’s actions violate both Armenian constitutional law and international human‑rights obligations.
International law specialist Kevork Hagopjian has described the repression and ensuing confrontations as “rule‑of‑law tests,” arguing that executive pressure on Etchmiadzin crosses a legal boundary by interfering in matters beyond state authority [13–15]. Philippe Raffi Kalfayan, writing in The Armenian Mirror‑Spectator, similarly contends that selective recognition and suppression of Church factions breach the Armenian state’s duty of neutrality under the European Convention on Human Rights [17].
Journalist Hoory Minoyan has characterized the unfolding dispute as a constitutional crisis, noting that the Armenian Constitution grants no role to the executive branch in appointing or removing the Catholicos [12].
Diaspora Institutions and Commentators Mobilize
Major diaspora organizations have issued unusually direct warnings.
The Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU) urged the government to respect Church self‑governance and called for reconciliation rather than coercion [2]. In a separate publication, the AGBU highlighted a quarter century of institutional growth under Catholicos Karekin II, citing expanded infrastructure, accredited seminaries, social‑service programs, and unprecedented Vatican engagement [3].
The Armenian Democratic Liberal Party (ADLP) Coordinated Press condemned what it called “stubbornly unconstitutional, undemocratic, and dictatorial practices,” denouncing the detention of clergy without standard judicial safeguards [1].
Leading voices from the Los Angeles community have warned of internal destabilization. Commentator Harut Sassounian has repeatedly argued that state pressures on the Church risk provoking civil conflict [9–11], while Glendale City-councilman Ardashes “Ardy” Kassakhian has written that undermining the Church amounts to dismantling the very institution that preserved Armenian identity through historical catastrophes [4].
On February 12, several prominent Armenian diaspora representatives published an open letter warning the Armenian government about the potential consequences of its actions toward the Church. The signatories include Noubar Afeyan, co-founder of Moderna; Anthony Barsamian, former chairman of the Armenian Assembly of America; Lord Ara Darzi of Denham, British Armenian surgeon and member of the U.K. House of Lords; UCLA physician and philanthropist Eric Esrailian; businessman Vatche Manoukian; French financier Joseph Oughourlian; and Berge Setrakian, former president of the Armenian General Benevolent Union.
The letter cautioned that, “even if unintentional, the Armenian government’s approach is risking severing its relationship with the diaspora.”
The authors further declared their obligation as Diaspora Armenians in the US and other countries, to seek legal action/intervention from their respective governments. “Diasporan Armenians are obliged to seek the assistance of our own governments — including political remedies and legal actions if necessary — in protecting our religious rights,” the letter stated, including the Armenian Apostolic Church’s right to self-governance. [21]
The Coordinating Council of Armenian Organizations of France (CCAF) has also issued a sharply worded statement condemning what it described as “the repression committed against the Armenian Apostolic Church in Armenia.”
The organization said the situation had reached a critical point following what it called “illegal prosecutions initiated against His Holiness Karékin II, Catholicos of all Armenians,” arguing that the allegations concern matters “that clearly fall within the exclusive competence of the clergy.”
According to the CCAF, the actions represent “a campaign, of a political nature, directed against the Supreme Leader of the Armenian Church,” which it said constitutes “an inadmissible violation of one of the essential pillars of the Armenian national identity.” [23]
A Defining Test for Church–State Boundaries
Supporters of the Armenian government maintain that law enforcement actions are purportedly legitimate and that Church leaders are not above the law. Critics counter that timing, selectivity, and institutional targeting point to a campaign designed to fracture Church unity, restrict international engagement, and subordinate an autonomous religious institution to executive authority [6,15,16,19].
As David A. Grigorian wrote in a full‑page Financial Times advertisement, Armenia’s most enduring institution now appears to be on a “collision course with its own government”—a confrontation whose outcome may define the country’s democratic and constitutional future [8].
1. ADLP Coordinated Press — The Armenian Mirror‑Spectator, Dec. 10, 2025
→ Claims of unconstitutional state interference; condemnation of clergy detentions without due process.
2. Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU) — The Armenian Mirror‑Spectator, Dec. 24, 2025
→ Call for Church autonomy, reconciliation, and respect for canonical self‑governance.
3. AGBU Magazine — Dec. 2025
→ Factual record of institutional, educational, social, and diplomatic achievements under Catholicos Karekin II.
4. Ardashes “Ardy” Kassakhian — The Armenian Mirror‑Spectator, Nov. 13, 2025
→ Argument that weakening the Church threatens Armenian national survival.
5. Arshaluys Barseghyan — OC Media, Jan. 2026
→ Reporting on allegations of pressure on military chaplains; ministry denial and Church confirmation.
6. Christian Solidarity International (CSI) — Nov. 22, 2025
→ Framing of events as a “systematic state‑led campaign” against religious freedom.
7. Christian Solidarity International — Dec. 27, 2025
→ Analysis of Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan’s imprisonment as political/religious repression.
8. David A. Grigorian — Financial Times advertisement, 2025
→ Argument that Armenia is facing a historic church–state collision.
9. Harut Sassounian — Horizon Weekly, Dec. 2, 2025
→ Warning of destabilization from confrontation with Church leadership.
10. Harut Sassounian — The California Courier, Dec. 15, 2025
→ Critique of executive ambitions over Church authority.
11. Harut Sassounian — Aravot, June 18, 2025
→ Warning that attacks on the Church risk civil conflict.
12. Hoory Minoyan — The Armenian Weekly, Jan. 8, 2026
→ Description of the dispute as a constitutional crisis.
13. Kevork Hagopjian — The California Courier, June 30, 2025
→ Rule‑of‑law analysis; national‑survival framing.
14. Kevork Hagopjian — Groong Podcast, Jan. 13, 2026
→ Detailed legal critique of executive overreach.
15. Kevork Hagopjian — Dec. 3, 2025
→ Argument that judicial actions against clergy breach constitutional limits.
16. Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention — Dec. 28, 2025
→ Warning of identity erosion; concern over repression and media restrictions.
17. Philippe Raffi Kalfayan — The Armenian Mirror‑Spectator, Nov. 13, 2025
→ European human‑rights law analysis; duty of state neutrality.
18. Sergio Nahabetian — The Armenian Mirror‑Spectator, Jan. 6, 2026
→ Diaspora perspective on the Church as non‑negotiable national pillar.
19. CivilNet — Jan. 31, 2026
→ Factual reporting on travel bans imposed on bishops ahead of the Austria meeting.
20. CivilNet — Feb. 06, 2026
→ Armenia DM terminates military chaplaincy system.
21. MediaMax — Feb. 12, 2026
→ Warning from Prominent Armenians.
22. CivilNet — Feb. 14, 2026
→ Prosecutor’s office opens criminal case on Catholicos Karekin II and imposes travel ban.
23. 301.am, CCAF Facebook Page — Feb. 14, 2026
→ Coordinating Council of Armenian Organizations in France (CCAF) issues statement condemning Pashinyan government’s repressions
*This article was produced, in part, utilizing data research and drafting assistance from generative artificial intelligence. Sources, quotations, and factual claims were reviewed and verified by author prior to publication.
Khachig Joukhajian is a historian, researcher, and educator. He earned his degree in Philosophy and Armenian Studies from UCLA and holds a Master’s degree in History Education from Mikayel Nalbandian State University of Gyumri.
