The goal of this essay is to illustrate the source of the modern autonomy in
brief. Since Armenia is more o less de facto and de jure is part of the common
framework of European state system it is essential to understand the some of the
dimensions of the religious autonomy. The final parts of this essay will define
quite succinctly what are those principles of the autonomy.

There are two major trends of evolutions towards autonomy that lay in the heart
of the modern church autonomy in Europe. One approach evolved from the
development of the relationship between the powerful Catholic Church and the

state. The other one evolved from the relationship between protestant churches
of Anglican type and Lutheran church and the state. The fist model had its own
diversifications. At one extreme the relationship formed into concordat system
of agreeable relationship between state and the church. There are a number of
states in Europe including, for example, Spain, Italy, Hungary that have some
sort of agreement with Vatican. It presupposed the principle enshrined in the II
constitution of the latter as of 1965 where it states “The political community
and the Church each one in its own sphere are independent and from one another
and autonomous” ¹. The other extreme unique on its own attempted to separate
religion from the society to the utmost possible degree. This model was to
become based on the principle of French laïcité² . To this date the principle
upholds the juridical separation of confessions from state altogether”³ . Its
essential feature is despite the weakening of positions of the Catholic Church
it did not remove religions from the French society which was the goal of the
law as of 1905 ⁴. Instead it ironically served to proliferate the so-called “new”
religious movements and Islam.

The other trend evolved from the relationship of the state and churches of
Scandinavian countries (including Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland) and
England with the governments. This trend towards autonomy originally came from
state governed or state controlled church models. The major idea behind the
approache nested in the fact that both Lutheran churches of Sweden, Denmark,
Norway, Orthodox and Lutheran of Finland, Anglican Church of England, Greek
Orthodox Church have had some or other form of tie with the legislative bodies
of their respective countries until quite recently. The tie was expressed, for
example, in form of parliament being the legislative body of the church of
England up to 1970 when the Synod, the Legislative body of the church, was
created by the act of the Parliament. The other churches of the mentioned above
states also went into disestablished status within the end of XX and the start
of XXI centuries⁵ . The processes shaping the influence of one on another is
still apparently continuing in the development of relationships between state
and churches in Finland ⁶. The essential feature of this model appears to stay
some officially proclaimed historical, cultural and moral allegiance of the
populations of the states despite evolving autonomy and separation of churches
from the states.

The overall analysis of the models of autonomy from the mentioned two
mainstreams (Amercan model, also a very interesting one, is not discussed here)
tends reveal two general provisions. Firstly, most of European state systems
tend to allow full control of churches in matters of their internal hierarchy
and self-administration. Secondly, the trend in European states even with the
Lutheran form of dominant religion is giving autonomy to churches in terms of
their ecclesiastical or doctrinal development. Some of trends exist that can
possibly affirm corporate dimension of this type of autonomy. Questions remain
with the evolution of collective rights of religious communities ⁷.

1. R. Minnerath “The Right to Autonomy in Religious Affairs” in Facilitating
   Freedom of Religion or Belief” (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden 2004) 307
2. S.Khachtryan “State, Religion and Society” in Lraber the Academy of Science of
   RA (to be published at the end of 2005 and beginning of 2006)
3. Laïcité et République Commission présidé par B. Stasi (La Documentation
   française, Paris 2004) 21 also see S.Khachtryan “State, Religion and Society” 1
4. S.Khachtryan “State, Religion and Society” 2-5
5. R. Minnerath “The Right to Autonomy in Religious Affairs” 302-303
6. Ibid. 304
7. Some of the arguments on collective dimension of the rights was developed from
   and fed by correspondence between the author of the essay and P.N. Jones,
   Professor of Political Science of the University of Newcastle.