"The June 2025 Storm: Church-State Relations in 2025" an article by Carlo Coppola
Armenia's Institutional Crisis: Pashinyan versus Karekin II
«Հայաստանի հաստատութենական ճգնաժամը. Եկեղեցի-պետություն հարաբերութիւնները 2025-ին»: Կառլո Կոպպոլայի հոդված.
In the midst of the Caucasian summer of 2025, Armenia is experiencing one of the most acute institutional crises in its modern history. The conflict between Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II has reached an unprecedented breaking point, calling into question the centuries-old balance between civil power and religious authority in the Transcaucasian republic.
The controversy erupted publicly when Pashinyan accused the Catholicos of violating his ecclesiastical vow of celibacy, provocatively asking him "Do you have a son?" in a confrontation that scandalized Armenian public opinion. The Prime Minister did not stop there: he proposed forming a coordination group to organize new elections for the Catholicosate and declared that he no longer recognizes Karekin II as the legitimate patriarch, stating that "Ktrich Nersisyan must leave the Catholicosate."
This crisis is not a bolt from the blue. Relations between Pashinyan's government and the Armenian Apostolic Church have progressively deteriorated since 2018, when the leader of the "Velvet Revolution" came to power. The Church, led by Karekin II since 1999, represents one of Armenia's most solid pillars of identity, embodying a tradition that dates back to the fourth century and the work of Saint Gregory the Illuminator.
The Historical Role of the Armenian Apostolic Church
To understand the magnitude of this crisis, it is necessary to contextualize the unique role that the Armenian Apostolic Church has always played in Armenian society. Founded according to tradition by the apostle Saint Gregory the Illuminator in 301 AD, Armenia was the first kingdom in the world to officially adopt Christianity as its state religion. The Church has never been merely a religious institution, but the guardian of Armenian national identity through centuries of foreign domination, genocides, and dispersions.
During the long period of Ottoman and later Soviet rule, the Church kept Armenian culture alive when political institutions were either non-existent or controlled by foreign powers. The Catholicos of Echmiadzin was not only a spiritual guide but the moral representative of the entire Armenian people, both in the homeland and in the worldwide diaspora.
Today, the Armenian Apostolic Church counts approximately 9 million faithful worldwide, with 94% of the Armenian population identifying with this denomination. The Catholicos of All Armenians has authority over approximately 50 dioceses distributed between Armenia proper and global diaspora communities.
Concordats in Italian History: A Reference Model
The Italian experience offers an interesting point of comparison for understanding how State-Church relations can be regulated in a context of strong religious tradition. The history of Italian concordats is emblematic of the evolution of these relations from the Risorgimento to the present day.
During the era of the ancient pre-unification states, each political entity on the peninsula had developed specific relations with the Catholic Church. The Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont, under the leadership of Camillo Benso di Cavour, represented the laboratory of a new conception of State-Church relations. The Siccardi Laws of 1850 abolished certain ecclesiastical privileges, while the Urbano Rattazzi law of 1855 suppressed many religious orders, marking an initial separation between civil and religious spheres.
The Italian unification process disrupted the traditional equilibrium. The capture of Rome in 1870 and the end of papal temporal power created the famous "Roman Question" with Pius IX declaring himself a "prisoner in the Vatican" and refusing to recognize the new unified state. The Law of Guarantees of 1871 unilaterally attempted to regulate relations, guaranteeing the Pope certain sovereign prerogatives, but the conflict remained unresolved for over half a century.
The solution came with the Lateran Pacts of 1929, signed between Mussolini and Pope Pius XI. The Concordat recognized Vatican sovereignty and regulated numerous aspects of religious life in Italy, from religious marriage to the teaching of Catholic doctrine in schools. However, this agreement bore the mark of the fascist regime and its authoritarian conception of institutional relations.
The true democratic breakthrough came with the revision of the Concordat in 1984, signed by Bettino Craxi and Cardinal Agostino Casaroli. The new agreement established the principle that "the State and the Catholic Church are, each within their respective domains, independent and sovereign," eliminating the definition of Catholicism as the "sole religion of the Italian State" and introducing more democratic mechanisms in the management of issues such as religious education and the financing of ecclesiastical activities.
Differences Between the Italian Model and the Armenian Situation
The comparison with the Italian experience highlights the specificities of the Armenian case. In Italy, the Catholic Church, while maintaining a relevant social role, has progressively accepted separation from the direct political sphere. The process was long and not without conflicts, but it was based on institutional dialogue that led to shared solutions.
In Armenia, however, the situation is complicated by several factors. First, the Armenian Apostolic Church has never ceased to consider itself the custodian of Armenian national identity, a role reinforced by the tragedies of the twentieth century: the 1915 genocide, the dispersion of the diaspora, and more recently the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020. Second, the Armenian constitution, while formally sanctioning the separation between State and Church, recognizes the "special role" of the Armenian Apostolic Church in the spiritual life of the Armenian people.
The current crisis also reveals a profound generational and ideological divide. Pashinyan represents a generation of leaders formed in the post-Soviet era, oriented toward the West and less bound to ecclesiastical traditions. His government has sought to modernize the country, combat corruption, and develop democratic institutions according to European standards. On the other hand, Karekin II and the ecclesiastical hierarchy embody a millennial historical continuity and view with suspicion attempts to diminish the Church's influence in Armenian society.
The Armenian Diaspora and the Complexity of the Issue
An element that further complicates the situation is the role of the worldwide Armenian diaspora. Unlike Italy, where the Catholic Church has a primarily national dimension, the Armenian Apostolic Church bears responsibility that transcends Armenia's borders. Armenian communities in France, the United States, Argentina, Lebanon, and many other countries look to Echmiadzin as the spiritual center of their identity.
This international dimension explains why many voices from the diaspora have risen against Pashinyan's attacks on the Catholicos. Religious and lay leaders from American and European Armenian communities have defined the Prime Minister's accusations as "profane and unseemly," fearing that the crisis could weaken the unity of worldwide Armenianness at a moment of great geopolitical fragility.
Toward a Solution: The Cavourian Principle of "A Free Church in a Free State"
Faced with this crisis, Italian history suggests a possible way forward based on the principle enunciated by Camillo Benso di Cavour: "a free Church in a free State." This motto, which inspired the reforms of the Kingdom of Sardinia and subsequently of unified Italy, could offer a model for contemporary Armenia.
The thought of Vincenzo Gioberti in "Il Primato Morale e Civile degli Italiani" (The Moral and Civil Primacy of the Italians)" (1831) and the reflections of Cesare Balbo in "Le speranze d'Italia" (The Hopes of Italy)" (1844) provide an interesting conceptual framework. Gioberti, despite being a priest, maintained that the Church should concentrate on its spiritual mission, leaving the State to manage the temporal sphere. Balbo, for his part, saw in the respectful collaboration between civil and religious authorities the key to the nation's progress.
Applied to the Armenian context, this principle would mean recognizing the Apostolic Church's role as guardian of Armenian spiritual and cultural identity, guaranteeing it full autonomy in the religious sphere. At the same time, the State should exercise its sovereignty in temporal matters without ecclesiastical interference, but always with respect for the Church's historical and social role.
Concrete Proposals for Reconciliation
A lasting solution to the Armenian crisis would require several concrete steps inspired by the Italian experience:
First, the creation of a permanent dialogue forum between government and Church representatives, modeled on the Joint Commission provided for by the Italian Concordat of 1984. This body could address controversial issues before they degenerate into public conflicts.
Second, a shared revision of legislation governing State-Church relations that would definitively clarify reciprocal competencies. Armenia could draw inspiration from the Italian principle of independence and sovereignty of each institution "within its respective domain."
Third, the recognition of democratic mechanisms for resolving internal Church controversies without governmental interference. The State should refrain from entering into ecclesiastical disciplinary matters, just as the Church should avoid taking direct political positions.
Fourth, the development of constructive collaborative frameworks in areas of common interest, such as education, social assistance, and the preservation of Armenian cultural heritage. The Italian experience demonstrates that State and Church can cooperate effectively when they respect each other's roles.
Conclusions: The Lesson of History
The crisis between Pashinyan and Karekin II represents a turning point for modern Armenia. Like Italy during the Risorgimento, the Caucasian nation finds itself confronting the necessity of redefining the balance between religious tradition and democratic modernity. The Italian experience, with its mistakes and successes, offers valuable lessons.
The Cavourian principle of "a free Church in a free State" does not signify mutual hostility, but recognition of the legitimacy and autonomy of each sphere. As Gioberti wrote, the true greatness of a nation is measured by its institutions' capacity to collaborate while respecting reciprocal prerogatives. Balbo's "Hopes of Italy" was founded precisely on this vision of respectful cooperation between civil and religious authorities.
Armenia has the opportunity to transform this crisis into an occasion for democratic maturation. Mutual respect between State and Church, acceptance of pluralism, and constructive dialogue can guarantee the country a future of stability and progress while preserving the deep roots of its millennial identity. As Italian history demonstrates, it is not necessary to choose between tradition and modernity: it is possible, with wisdom and goodwill, to construct an equilibrium that honors both.
