The trial of Karekin II, the Catholicos of Armenia, is part of the government’s efforts to shift its position and break away from its pro-Russian stance.
On August 7, the trial of Karekin II, the Catholicos of the Armenian Apostolic Church, began. He and six other high members of the Supreme Council are accused of obstructing the ruling of a civil court that restored the episcopal office to Bishop Gevorg Saroyan.
The trial, which could result in a two-year prison sentence, was immediately suspended, however, following the resignation of Judge Hakob Manukian, who cited a potential conflict of interest. This is a sensational development. It is the first time in the 17-century-spanning history of the Church, which has always been one of the cornerstones of Armenian identity, that such a “disturbing and unacceptable” event has occurred, as described by the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem.
All opposition members of parliament turned out to support the Catholicos, along with thousands of people. Upon returning to the episcopal residence, the hierarch said: “I regretfully note that our holy church and clergy are being persecuted by the authorities. Illegal proceedings have been initiated against church leaders and national benefactors, leading to arrests and restrictions on freedom.”
The vast majority of bishops and clergy, the other Armenian Catholicos (of Cilicia, residing in Lebanon), the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem, the bishops of Syria, Germany, and Iraq, the diaspora’s charitable organization (the General Armenian Union of Charity), the Armenian Diocese, and the Council of Armenian Organizations in France have all come to his defense.
However, there is still internal criticism of the Catholicos within the Church and the diaspora. He is accused of censuring over 150 clergy members (including four bishops) for calling for Church reforms and opposing his pro-Russian “political” stance, which is too close to the opposition and Russian-Armenian oligarch Samvel Karapetyan.
Not to mention, his brother Yzras Nersisyan is the bishop of the Armenian diocese in Russia. According to the Armenian police, he has served as a collaborator and informant for Russian intelligence services and is held in high regard by Putin.
Conflict with Deep Roots
The immediate precedents for the trial are the removal and dismissal from the clerical state of Bishop Gevorg Saroyan on January 27, 2026. A civil court overturned this decision, reinstating Saroyan in defiance of the ecclesiastical ruling. In response to opposition to the ruling, the government prevented the Catholicos and the bishops of the Supreme Council from holding a synod in St. Pölten, Austria. Instead, it took place as a simple episcopal assembly.
In 2024, with the support of the Catholicos, Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan led a popular movement calling for the resignation of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, as the Catholicos had already done in 2020. Pashinyan, in turn, accused Karekin II of violating his monastic vow of celibacy, deeming him unfit to lead the Church. He backed the protest of about ten bishops and thirty priests who called for Karekin II’s removal.
The conflict between the two began in 2018 when Pashinyan came to power. The bishops’ international passports were revoked, the patriarch lost his police protection, and pastoral services in prisons were abolished. Services for the armed forces were also restricted.
The conflict escalated amid the lost war against Azerbaijan (2020–2023), the flight of 100,000 Armenians from the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave, the “peace of the vanquished” signed in Washington on August 8, 2025, and suspicions that détente with Turkey might overshadow the demand for international recognition of the Armenian genocide. The two leaders disagree on all these issues.
The justification and interpretation of current events unfold along three axes: the full establishment of the state’s secularism, the need for a legal framework governing relations between Church and state, and the shift in Armenia’s position within the new global geopolitical landscape.
For Harutyun Harutyunyants, a professor at Yerevan State University, the ongoing process represents a blow to the old balance of power and the old KGB school of thought that “ensured Armenia remained under Russian domination and did not move even slightly closer to the West.” It marks “the victory of secularism over a historically established form of cooperation between the state and the national Church. It is the definitive separation of politics and religion in a country that was the first to recognize Christianity as the state religion in 301 A.D.” (Katholisch.de, August 7)
According to René Dzagoyan (Nouvelles d’Arménie en ligne, August 8), what is happening demonstrates, for the first time, how a civil court seeks to suspend the effects of a decision that the church considers its own within the framework of ecclesiastical law. Appearing before the judges, the Catholicos points out that “the entire system of relations between the Armenian state and the Apostolic Church finds itself in the dock.”
The 1995 Constitution proclaims the separation of Church and state while recognizing the Church’s exceptional mission in the spiritual life of the Armenian people. However, it still lacks adequate and precise provisions regarding assets, taxation, financial transparency, and procedures for resolving disputes. In other words, there is no concordat or law to provide structure and balance to the State-Church relationship.
Commentators more commonly frame the personal clash between Karekin II and Pashinyan—and between the Church and the state—within the new global geopolitical context.
The government is steering the country out of the traditional pro-Russian alignment orbit toward a position of political autonomy that is more in line with Western culture. Three developments illustrate the nature of this shift.
First, the outcome of the June 7 parliamentary elections confirmed a majority for Nikol Pashinyan’s “Civil Contract” party (64 seats), over the pro-Russian opposition parties “Strong Armenia” (29 seats) and “Armenian Alliance” (12 seats). This outcome legitimizes the government’s course.
Second, Pashinyan was absent from the Eurasian Economic Union meeting in Astana on May 29, which was chaired by Vladimir Putin. This economic alliance, representing Armenia’s largest market, is growing increasingly distant from Yerevan. The participating countries asked Pashinyan to clarify his position and demanded (in vain) a national referendum on the matter. Russia also imposed severe trade restrictions, though critical gas supplies were not affected.
Third, Yerevan celebrated the meeting of the European Political Community on May 4—a forum bringing together all European Union member states, neighboring countries, the United Kingdom, the Balkan countries, and Canada—and the subsequent meeting between the EU and Armenia on May 5. The signing of the peace agreement with Azerbaijan under the auspices of U.S. President Donald Trump represents the culmination of these efforts.
The Fate of a Fragile Country
The most controversial element is the risk of clashing with Armenia’s traditional ties to Russia, which have shaped and safeguarded the country, and attempting to force the Church to conform to policies through methods (legislative, judicial, and administrative) that are more closely aligned with the Soviet tradition than with a democratic legal system.
A fragile country of just over three million inhabitants, with seven million in the diaspora, squeezed between two “enemies” like Azerbaijan and Turkey, and excluded from the relevant international arena, is perpetually at risk of imploding.
Prof. Aldo Ferrari of Ca’ Foscari University in Venice put it this way: “I don’t want to sound dramatic, but I don’t know of any other country whose existence is as much at risk as Armenia’s. The only similar case is Israel, given that some of its neighboring countries express a desire to see it eliminated. However, there is a colossal difference between Israel’s strength—it is also a nuclear power—and Armenia’s. While no one today can realistically wipe Israel off the map, the same cannot be said for Armenia. Azerbaijan’s territorial claims on Armenian territory are potentially genocidal and are expressed at the official level, as can be verified on the country’s official websites.”
