As an Anglo-Catholic, I believe priests should be obedient to their bishop. I have, therefore, limited what I have said in response to the Archbishop’s statements.
That said, whilst the Archbishop refuses to engage directly in conversation with me, he continues to release press statements with incorrect information. At this stage, I feel complelled to set the record straight.
I am not accusing Archbishop Haverland of lying, that would be uncharitable, but his statements contain many factual inaccuracies. I am sure he is not intending to spread false information, and would therefore welcome a correction of his public mistruths.
The press releases on the ACC website are published in the third person plural, but no signatures are included. It is not certain if Archbishop Haverland is using his preferred pronouns in the sense of the Royal ‘we’, or if he has sought the approval of the College of Bishops.
On the matter of communications – the Archbishop states I have been ‘warned’ a number of times about certain things. For the record: since joining his province I have not received a single letter, phone call, zoom meeting or anything else from the Archbishop. Until the removal of my license, we had precisely one email thread – and that is a thread started by me. For transparency, I was writing to let the Archbishop know that one of his priests, Fr Robert Hart, had been attacking me publicly. Not the warm welcome I had quite expected to the ACC, but I was not writing to formally complain, I wanted to let the Archbishop know just in case anything arose further down the line. I could see Fr Hart had quite the checkered past of attacking conservatives and wanted to make a record of this incident. You can never be too careful with extremist liberals. The Archbishop’s response was not most helpful, he essentially said he has two problematic political priests to deal with, me on the Right and Fr Hart on the left (who he intended to *encourage* to retire). There was no warning of a removal of license, no disciplinary action (for myself nor Fr Hart) and no hint of any formalities. With the Archbishop’s permission, I will release the email thread.
Again, this is the only time we have communicated since I joined his jurisdiction. No welcome message, no training, no formation, no team building, no informal catchups, no formal meetings, nothing.
The next time he made contact was to revoke my licence to serve in any of the ~250 churches under his authority – an email I did not see at first, because I was being doxxed by radical Leftists. I found out via the public press statement, which the Archbishop released without so much as a conversation with me or my parish.
After searching my inbox, I found that the email removing my license to serve was sent at 3:45pm. In the Archbishop’s own words, according to his press statement, “At approximately 3:00 pm today (1/29) members of the College of Bishops of the ACC were made aware of a post made on X showing the end of a speech made by Calvin Robinson at the National Pro-Life Summit in Washington, DC.” That means within 45 minutes of receiving complaints from the woke mob, the Archbishop had decided to fire me, written an email and published a press release. Was this enough time to convene a meeting with the College of Bishops, or did the Archbishop make this decision unilaterally? One might think he had already made this decision and was waiting for the right opportunity to get rid of his problematic conservative political priest.
It should be noted that when the parish called me to be their priest, the Archbishop made it clear to them that he would not have chosen me, but that he would not get in their way.
The first press release
The Archbishop stated in his first press statement that, “While we cannot say what was in Robinson’s heart when he did this, his action appears to have been an attempt to curry favor with certain elements of the American political right” I am happy to share what is in my heart – but that would require a conversation. Bear in mind the Archbishop has refused to have a phone conversation with me. In any other organisation this would be seen as basic decency. I am unsure why he goes on to make bad faith assumptions about making attempts to curry favour, after claiming not to know what was in my heart.
The next statement is categorically untrue, “Robinson had been warned that online trolling and other such actions (whether in service of the left or right) are incompatible with a priestly vocation and was told to desist” I would request the Archbishop provide his receipts. I have never been warned about online trolling, and I have never been told to desist, which makes his following statement unclear, “Clearly, he has not, and as such, his license in this Church has been revoked. He is no longer serving as a priest in the ACC.” Is there no due process in the ACC? Do priests not get a fair hearing, a trial, or at least a conversation? How many warnings should one receive before being sacked? In the secular world one might expect a verbal warning, a written warning, and then disciplinary action before being fired. In the ACC, it seems, none of that is necessary. It was my understanding that bishops are servant leaders, not dictatorial tyrants operating their personal fiefdoms. The ACC is not the Archbishop’s private enterprise, or at least it should not be – it should operate as a part of God’s Church. If it does not, what does it purport to be?
Archbishop Haverland then used the rest of the press release to pontificate about the Holocaust, as if trying to link my words and actions at the pro-life event with Naziism, which would be disingenuous and wrong.
He ended the press release with, “Finally, we pray that God will give us grace to lay aside our unhappy divisions”, the irony being that the division here should be between those who support the pro-life cause and those who do not; those who believe we are made in the image of God and that all human life is sacred, and those who do not. The divide should not be between Christians and the woke mob. By capitulating to said mob, one could argue that the Archbishop has chosen not to side with Christians on an important moral issue, and has instead chosen to feed the crocodile, which puts him on the side of cancel culture.
The second press release
“When Robinson was received into the ACC, he was told that there was a distinction of offices between political activist and parish priest.” Again, categorically untrue. I would ask the Archbishop to provide his receipts for this, too. I have always had a public ministry and a parish ministry. Upon being received into the ACC, I combined those ministries. This is at the insistence of my parish, which called me out here. They have been building a studio in the church building at great personal expense because they are keen on bringing my public ministry into the parish. They recognise that in these times churches cannot hunker down and bury their heads in the sand, and that we must be outward facing. My wonderful parish sees that the Church is dying in the West because liberals scream the loudest and Christians do not contribute to the public discourse. If we want to return the West to Christendom, we must pray, but we must also put in the work. The days of being the mild and meek parish priest who you only see on a Sunday are long gone. We are living through a spiritual war, not a culture war, and we all have a part to play in that. My parishioners see this – I am sorry that the Archbishop does not. All that to say, I was certainly not discouraged from my public activities upon joining the ACC. I was, in fact, encouraged and sent with the full endorsement of my parish.
“His bishops made it clear to him that he had been received into the Church to minister to a parish, and as such, he would have to eschew the provocative political behavior that characterized his prior career as a TV presenter, blogger, and social media influencer. He has not done so, and what happened at the National Right to Life Summit was not an isolated incident.” Untrue. The truth is provocative. In a time of lies, when we are told men can become women, and that killing our offspring is “healthcare”, it is our job to be provocative. Speaking at a pro-life summit is not “political” it is moral. To this, I would ask the Archbishop to show his workings. How much has he contributed to this most important conversation? The biggest killer of innocent lives in the West is abortion – it is one of the greatest evils of our time, and every Christian leader has a duty and an obligation to vehemently oppose it. To shut down someone who is doing so is wrong, especially if one is not doing so oneself. As for being a “TV presenter, blogger and social media influencer” there is something to be said about being more prudent on these platforms, absolutely, but not in avoiding them. My greatest inspirations in this area are Mother Angelica and Archbishop Fulton Sheen. The Church tried to silence and control Mother Angelica, but she carried on with the good fight. The Venerable Fulton Sheen never shied away from a fight, either. I no longer have a television show, but when I did, I created explicitly Christian content like nothing else on air in the UK today. My Christmas and Easter specials in particular are work I am incredibly pleased with and that I hope will one day count towards the Lord saying those blessed words, “Well done, good and faithful servant” Social media is the television of our time – the independent media is rapidly taking over that space, and we should expect our Christian leaders to be there. We cannot and should not hand over that ground to the liberals, secularists, atheists, heathens and pagans.
What came next was quite telling, “He was not hired by the ACC to be an official spokesman, social media influencer” I was called to serve St Paul’s as a public parish priest. I have never attempted to speak on behalf of the ACC. If we are entirely honest, not many people outside of niche American Anglo-Catholic circles had even heard of the ACC before this incident. Could there be a little envy here? We know the Archbishop had aspirations of being a renowned author at one point. And to be fair to him, his book is quite good – it provides a decent take on Anglo-Catholicism, it is only slightly ruined by the constant references to the ACC; it would have been better suited as generically Anglo-Catholic and probably would have had a larger reach and therefore bigger impact. The problem with having quite a big profile is that it can sometimes bring out the worst in people who covet it. My platform has been given to me for the purposes of my ministry, and when the Lord no longer deems me having a need of it, I am absolutely convinced God will take it away. I have no desire to be an “influencer” unless it means influencing people toward Christ. My job is to point people toward Him. It is not something I always get right, but that is my goal. Any assumptions otherwise are made in bad faith.
“He was repeatedly warned not to engage in the sort of behavior that he displayed at the National Right to Life Conference” When? We are still waiting for the receipts, Your Grace.
I believe I made a fairly decent speech at the pro-life event. In retrospect, I could have used a different joke at the end, but I most certainly still would have ended with a joke. That is my style. It was a tough topic, and in my British way I like to lighten the mood at the end. That should not take away from the importance of the topic at hand, and I am disappointed that the Archbishop chose to do that. Before the woke mob bandwagon started making noise, the vast majority of the feedback was positive.
“he did not comply. As such, his license to serve in the ACC was revoked. In doing so, the bishops acted in accordance with ACC canons.” Here the Archbishop is claiming my license was revoked because of a failure to comply. But I have never received any orders, warnings, rebukes, demands, or anything similar and therefore had nothing to comply with. He also seems to claim that the decision was made by bishops, plural. Was this a unanimous decision by the College of Bishops or not? Did the Archbishop manage to call bishops around the world and come to a decision in under 45 minutes, or did he make the decision on his own? With no signatures on the published letters, I think some transparency in this area is warranted. Who are these statements released on behalf of?
“He is still a priest and is free to return to the Nordic Catholic Church, the Free Church of England, or the Church of England, the three Churches, which since 2022, he has been a member of and subsequently left.” Perhaps I am being overly sensitive here, but this remark came across like a snide attack. For clarity, I was a member of the Church of England all of my life, until I was ordained a Deacon in the Free Church of England and then a priest by the Old Catholics (Nordic Catholic Church) under an arrangement between the two. I continued to serve in the Free Church of England church in Harlesden for the entirety of my ministry in England. I have only ever served in one church. This portrayal by the Archbishop is not as dishonest as some of his statements, but is worded in a way to paint an inaccurate picture.
“What he may not do is serve in the ACC or with its ecumenical partners.” I am not sure the Archbishop of the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) has the authority to speak on behalf of the other G3 churches – Anglican Province of America (APA), Anglican Church in America (ACA), and the Diocese of the Holy Cross (DOHC).
“The ACC stands by its original statement. The sort of conduct Robinson displayed at the National Right to Life Summit is harmful, divisive, and contrary to the tenets of Christian charity.” Jesus says he came to bring division. The truth is not harmful, it is healing. To minimise my speech down to just the humorous gesture at the end is uncharitable. It is sad to see the Archbishop doubling down here.
“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, even to their foes.” We are, indeed, called to provoke. As for trolling or mocking our foes, perhaps the Archbishop would benefit from a refresher of 1 Kings 18:27, “And at noon Eli′jah mocked them, saying, ‘Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is musing, or he has gone aside, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.’” Also, it is an ancient Catholic teaching to mock the devil.
“This is not ‘woke’ doctrine; it is basic Christian teaching and consistent with the expectations the ACC has of its priests.” Perhaps it is not woke, but it could be argued that it is weak.
The third press release
Finally, we gain some information about who may or may not have issued the revocation, “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.” Bishop Fodor is a good man, but he is not a peer or contemporary of Archbishop Haverland. If Haverland wanted to revoke my license, Bp Fodor would have no means to object to the decision. As far as I am aware, as an Episcopal Visitor from another jurisdiction, Bp Fodor does not sit in the College of Bishops of the ACC. Therefore, it would seem, Archbishop Haverland made the decision unilaterally, without his bishops. As for my conversations with Bp Fodor, they were always constructive, and he asked me to help set up a studio for him, so he can launch a similar public ministry. Bp Fodor can be seen dancing alone with me at a Tucker Carlson event whilst Kid Rock is singing Gospel music – a public witness seen by millions – he gets it. Bp Fodor regularly sends out emails on how to combat liberal arguments on issues like abortion. I do hope Haverland is not attempting to throw him under the bus.
“more detailed statement is required in light of the confusion and misinformation that has followed, much of it encouraged by Robinson on social media.” Here the Archbishop appears to be accusing me of spreading misinformation, which is rich given the number of inaccuracies in his statements so far. This is an accusation I outright reject, but you can make up your own minds:
“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.” Until this point, I have refused to comment on the Archbishop, I have not refuted his statements, and I have been as charitable as I could possibly be, despite calls to expose all. So, I resent this bad faith accusation. My previous statement can be read on my Substack. I thought I was very restrained.
“1. Robinson has not been “defrocked” or cancelled.” In my point of information tweet, dated 30th January, seen by over 200,000 people, I wrote “I have not been defrocked. My licence was revoked. This means I cannot minister in ~250 ACC churches. I am still a priest.”
“2. The revocation of Robinson’s license was not undertaken rashly or without warning.” as we have discovered, the decision was taken within 45 minutes. Less than that, because the lengthy email/press release had to be written, too. And I am yet to receive any warnings.
“3. Robinson’s license was not revoked because of a single act.” This seems to be in contradiction to the first two statements. What other acts?
“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.” This is an outrageous and libellous accusation. I have never said anything antisemitic or been associated with any antisemitic groups.
“This was communicated to Robinson, and he in writing disavowed any anti-semitism.” This much is true. It was communicated to me by a trusted source that Archbishop Haverland thinks I am an antisemite. This is, I assume, because of my conversations about dispensationalism, which I strongly disagree with – I stick to the traditional Catholic teaching on the matter. I volunteered a statement to my Bishop that I am not an antisemite, I am a Christian. Frankly, I resent the implication. It shows a lack of charity and/or poor theology. Regardless, is the Archbishop now attempting to claim part of the reason he removed my licence is because he believes me to be antisemitic?
“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.” This shows a clear lack of understanding of what it means to be a priest with a public ministry, and what it means to be a Christian in an increasingly secular world. It is a poor testament to the ACC, which is full of solid Christian priests and laymen.
“clergy can and should teach about moral matters which often have political implications, the distinction needs to be maintained” I maintain that my talk was on a moral issue, and that my humour was not particularly political.
“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.” The Apostles certainly provoked, and nothing in my words or actions was uncharitable.
“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.” These are not mutually exclusive things. My church has grown dramatically in my short time in Grand Rapids. That is not entirely due to me, but the faith of my wonderful parishioners and their capacity to share Christ with the community. We are doing good work, advancing the kingdom. Archbishop Haverland clearly has a dislike for my particular style, but I was never under the impression that I would have to serve according to his style. As long as one is theologically orthodox, there should be room for a range of styles. To be honest, I would not know what Haverland’s style is, I have never seen him minister, I do not think my congregation has either. As for being forgiving, I do not see the Archbishop’s stance as forgiving; I was never given an opportunity to explain myself, or even to apologise. There was no chance of repentance or forgiveness. No mercy whatsoever. I hope the Archbishop reflects on this, as I have, and asks himself whether he could have been more Christian in his outlook.
