Hetq had a chance to sit down and discuss the recent spate of criticism appearing in the press and various internet forums levelled at the Armenian Apostolic Church leadership, particularly Catholicos Garegin II, with Vardan Devrikyan.

Mr. Devrikyan currently serves as the Deputy Director of the Literature Institute and from 1989 to 2009 was employed at the Holy See of Etchmiadzin as chief editor of the magazine Etchmiadzin and director of the manuscript repository.

Mr. Devrikyan, has this recent criticism directed at the clergy, including the Catholicos, been artificially created or does it stem from a real sense of growing displeasure with the Armenian Church?

I would say it's an artificial thing put out there to bait people. And many devoted people in Armenia took the bait. It was a carefully managed campaign from the outside that wished to settle certain issues in Armenia.

Can you say who specifically instigated this wave of criticism?

It's not coincidental that this wave you speak of appeared after the events in the Arab Spring and the Facebook revolutions. There was talk all over that people were attempting to carry out revolutions via Facebook.

This campaign against the church and the Catholicos was a test run of the waters, just like, say, an atom bomb test. Those behind the test wanted to see what technological avenues they would have to utilize to target the Armenian president or various state structures in the future with such a Facebook attack.

I even believe it was conducted by forces not at all interested with Armenia or religious organizations but rather forces of a more social-political intent.

As to the supposed growing displeasure with the church, here there is some confusion. First, our society must define what demands it has from the Catholicosate, the various Diocesan Primates, and local priests. Our society now finds itself in a contradictory situation.

On the one hand, there is the concept that the church is separate from the state. In other words, the church is not a state institution and thus, it's a personal matter for each of us. On the other hand, society puts forth standards of a general nature.

The way I see it, there are a set of problems that our Church must deal with more seriously. But in all this rancour, the social direction, the idea of charity, was never raised in the press. For the most part, the focus was on the automobile being driven by a certain clergyman and the words allegedly uttered by the Catholicos regarding the preservation of religious monuments according to the historian Samvel Karapetyan.

There is no third argument in all this criticism. It was about those damn trees growing on the roof of Sanahin and the commercial "object" nearby, one complete argument in itself, coupled with the automobile and the weapon carried by another clergyman. There is no third argument to be made.

Can we infer from all this that the society is demanding that clergymen place less importance on material values?

But there was just the one example of just one clergyman with an expensive car. On the contrary, I believe that after a few decades pass and a researchers look back, they will say the church detractors could only come up with arguments revolving around the one car of one clergyman and what the Catholicos may or may not have said.

What about the gun carried by Archbishop Navasard Kchoyan, Vicar of the Araratian Patriarchal Diocese?

What's the problem? I'd like to have my own gun. Does the fact that Archbishop Kchoyan has a gun engraved with the signature of the late Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan make him a criminal? I would think it's an honor that a man like Andranik Margaryan made a gift of the gun. Has the Vicar ever shot anyone with the gun? That would be a different matter.

And is giving a car as a gift such a terrible thing? As an Armenian and Yerevan resident, I wouldn't be pleased to see the Vicar of the Araratian Diocese riding around in a Zaporozhets (Soviet-era subcompact).

They are trying to smear the ranks of the clergy with one or two examples. But look at the issue from the other side. Most of our clergy are in pretty tough conditions. They may be eking out a living off in the villages somewhere but they carry out their pastoral duties with devotion.

Sure I don't agree with everything but remember that I worked at the Holy See for twenty years. These high ranking clergy are like family to me and it would be in bad taste for me to now critique them.

But, deep down, I am waiting to see if our reporters will mature enough to raise the big picture issues – the social and moral problems facing our society that the Church needs to more actively tackle. Rather than raising such a ruckus over one automobile presented as a gift, why not try to see how effectively the church and its component parts is operating.

But isn't the Church also being criticized from the social perspective you talk about? In these various critiques, the issue of the close relationship between the Church and the state authorities is also frequently addressed.

I wouldn't say that the spiritual leadership has cemented a close relationship with the political authorities. You will not find one statement of the Spiritual Supreme Council or the Catholicos where support is expressed towards any political force, even the authorities. You won't even find any criticism of the opposition, for that matter. Even regarding the tragic events of March 1st, the Catholicosate always issued very balances statements and positions, thus eliciting displeasure from both sides.

The Church can neither defend the authorities nor the opposition. The Church can only defend our state. And this is what I believe the Church is doing.

And if you are still are inclined to see the possible close relations between one or two bishops with the ruling Republican Party, I can turn around and show you three or four diocesan primates that have certain close ties with the opposition. However, we cannot infer from this that our Church defends opposition political forces.

Mr. Devrikyan, you've said that the Church has always maintained a balance between the government and the opposition. What about the fact that the Catholicos never visited those demonstrating for ten days straight before March 1, 2008. Can't this be considered a violation of that balance and an inclination by the Church towards supporting the government?

Why should the Catholicos have visited a group of people supporting a certain political faction? In my opinion, it would have been condemnable if the Catholicos had gone to Freedom Square and told the people to 'disperse and go home'. In the same vein, it would have been wrong if he had gone and declared, 'Bravo people. Keep it up until this criminal regime collapses.'

When those events unfolded I was still working at the Holy See and remember all the emotional ups and downs the Catholicos was going through. He was mulling over all the versions of a resolution and even called me in once or twice to discuss what could be done. The way out was never externally displayed and, as a result, on the outside the impression was created that 'the Catholicos was avoiding the matter'. This attitude is unjust. It's a cross that one must bear. Catholicos Vazken and Catholicos Garegin I bore that same cross – never showing the hard work being done on the inside, out of sight, to come up with solutions.

In your opinion, does all this recent criticism directed at the Church purely have negative connotations or can the Church benefit from the criticism?

I do not view this criticism seriously and it is just noise that brings no honor to our people. Such clamour will always come and go. It neither strengthens nor weakens the Church. If, however, real healthy critique is raised dealing with social issues and the moral character of our people, it will help both the Church and the people. All the rest is empty talk and expressions of foreign ill will.

Do you think the "damaged" authority of the Catholicos and other high ranking Church officials has anything to do with the spread of religious sects in Armenia?

Sects were even around during the time of Catholicos Vazken, a man much beloved by the people. In general, sects grow during times of crisis and uncertainty. It's the same all over the world. Wars, earthquakes and other emergencies are fertile fields for certain deviations.

I am convinced that the more our lives are normalized with orderly social conditions, the sects will gradually retreat.

For example, have you ever seen members of Jehovah's Witnesses canvassing up and down Mashtots Avenue or Amiryan Street? You never will because it's not their "beat". In terms of social demographics it's not the part of Yerevan where they can recruit people.

They must go out and propagandize in the poorer districts where residents are vulnerable and defenceless – these are the weaknesses they target.

They prey on human tragedy rather than advocating spiritual strength.

Of course, our Church needs to do much more in the way of getting the message out and bonding with the people around these social, spiritual and moral issues.

This is a problem faced by traditional religious groups and churches in Europe as well who have seen their influence wane in the face of new religious tendencies.