A Statement on the Revocation of Calvin Robinson's License

The Anglican Catholic Church is a member of the  G-3 Anglican Joint Synods

A STATEMENT ON THE REVOCATION OF FR. CALVIN ROBINSON’S LICENSE

On January 30, 2024, the license of Fr. Calvin Robinson to serve as a priest in the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) was revoked by Archbishop Mark Haverland, Metropolitan of the Original Province of the ACC, with the consent of Bishop Patrick Fodor, the Episcopal Visitor (acting Bishop) of the ACC’s Diocese of the Midwest, in which Diocese Fr. Robinson had served for less than a year.

A more detailed statement is required in light of the confusion and misinformation that has followed, much of it encouraged by Robinson on social media.  The representations on social media and in legacy media mischaracterize what happened and have been pursued by Robinson himself with an apparent lack of that charity which should be the hallmark of a clergyman’s public acts and statements.

1.     Robinson has not been “defrocked” or cancelled. 

Robinson was ordained to the priesthood in the Nordic Catholic Church, after which he approached Archbishop Haverland with the proposal that he be allowed to serve an ACC parish in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  Archbishop Haverland noted that overt political activity is often incompatible with the requirements of sacerdotal ministry.  The expectation that such behavior is not acceptable by ACC clergymen was made clear.  Bishop Fodor subsequently admitted Robinson as a priest in the ACC and licensed him to serve the parish in Grand Rapids.  A license does not confer any rights to the clergyman to whom it is granted, other than to serve at the pleasure of the Bishop who issues it.  On January 30, Archbishop Haverland revoked Robinson’s license.  This does not depose Robinson from priestly ministry or silence him in any way (as shown by Robinson’s social media response).  It simply removes his ability to exercise that ministry in the ACC or other jurisdictions with whom the ACC has an intercommunion agreement.

2.     The revocation of Robinson’s license was not undertaken rashly or without warning. 

In the short time that Robinson had his license from the ACC, he was warned repeatedly that his continued partisan political activity was inconsistent with his ministry.  These warnings came both from Archbishop Haverland and Bishop Fodor.  They began politely as reminders and became firm admonitions as they had to be repeated.  Robinson was told that his license was at risk because he was continuing to act as a political social media personality, and it was reiterated that such activity was inconsistent with priestly ministry.  Robinson was aware that he was repeatedly disobeying legitimate episcopal authority, yet continued his course of conduct.

3.     Robinson’s license was not revoked because of a single act. 

It does not matter whether Robinson’s talk at the recent pro-life rally ended with a joke, as he has claimed.  Prior to the incident at the pro-life rally, Robinson was alleged to have made statements that were anti-semitic, or in sympathy with anti-semitic groups.  Archbishop Haverland notified Bishop Fodor that any further provocation would result in the loss of Robinson’s license. This was communicated to Robinson, and he in writing disavowed any anti-semitism.  This is the immediate context for his most recent activity, and he was aware that he was required to tread carefully in order to maintain his license.  Instead, he deliberately acted as a provocateur, as he has continued to do, in order to “troll” political liberals (his own characterization).  It does not matter whether Robinson was acting on behalf of the left or the right; what matters is that, after being warned repeatedly to desist from his overtly provocative behavior, he chose to continue it. 

The distinction of offices between priest and politician/citizen/statesman meant that Robinson’s existing vocation as a political personality would have to be toned down if he were to be a priest in the ACC, and this was made explicit to him when he sought a license.  While there is a tolerable spectrum of clerical involvement in political and cultural matters, and clergy can and should teach about moral matters which often have political implications, the distinction needs to be maintained.  Priests are certainly called to support the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of life and on a range of other doctrinal issues; but they are not called to provoke, to troll, or to behave uncharitably toward their opponents.  They are called to minister to, to persuade, to forgive, to be gentle, and to be kind even to their foes.  Robinson demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament and prudence needed in a parish priest.