From Father George Christensen on the Robinson Affair

Fr. Christensen is a priest in the Traditional Anglican Church in Australia (formerly Anglican Catholic Church in Australia) and a political activist.  This was just posted on his Facebook page.

_____________________________________

The more I read this statement from The Anglican Catholic Church regarding the revocation of Fr Calvin Robinson’s license, the angrier I become.

It is not just, it is not fair, it is not impartial—and I could go further, but out of respect for the Church, I won’t.

However, serious questions demand answers, and key facts and concerns must be acknowledged:

Grave Procedural Irregularities

• Who exactly made the decision to revoke the license? Was it his Bishop, as canon law requires, or an overreach by others?

• The statement ambiguously refers to “members of the College of Bishops” rather than Fr. Robinson’s own Bishop. Why? A priest is answerable to his own Bishop—so who actually made the call?

• The statement declares that “his license in this Church has been revoked” and that he “is no longer serving as a priest in the ACC.”

• This implies an extra-diocesan decision, raising the question: Who, exactly, has the authority to expel a priest from the entire ACC?

• Under what canon? Where is the due process?

An Insult to Holy Orders

• The reference to “Mr. Robinson” is both insulting and puerile.

• Fr Robinson’s holy orders stem from the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC), which Rome recognizes as valid.

• Even the Pope would likely call him “Father.” Yet, the author of this statement—representing a church whose own orders Rome does not recognise—chooses to strip him of his priestly dignity? On what grounds?

No Evidence, Just “Interpretation”

• Fr Robinson is not even accused of making a Nazi salute in the statement.

• Rightly so—because he didn’t.

• Instead, the statement only claims that “many have interpreted” his gesture “as a pro-Nazi salute.”

• Who are these “many,” and what are their motivations?

• Are they informed parties, or simply political activists looking for an excuse to destroy a conservative priest?

• The statement itself admits: “We cannot say what was in Mr. Robinson’s heart when he did this.”

• Then why was he not asked?

• Why was no inquiry conducted?

• Why was there no opportunity to clarify his intent?

The Statement Itself Proves This Was About Politics

• The statement specifically refers to “unhappy divisions” in the United States.

• What place does a commentary on American politics have in an official church statement about a priest’s discipline?

• If this were truly a neutral disciplinary matter, why even mention politics at all?

• By inserting this reference, the author unwittingly confirms that this decision was politically motivated.

• Even worse, the statement claims Fr. Robinson’s action was “an attempt to curry favor with certain elements of the American political right by provoking its opposition.”

• This is a nakedly political and partisan accusation—one that assumes partisan intent without proof.

• It contradicts the earlier admission that “we cannot say what was in Mr. Robinson’s heart.”

• The phrase “curry favor” is pejorative, dismissive, and inappropriate for a Church statement, unless of course it’s coming from the Episcopal Church where you’d expect that kind of thing.

• This kind of rhetoric belongs in a political attack, not in an official ecclesiastical pronouncement.

• If this were truly about clerical discipline, there would be no need for political speculation or loaded language.

A Violation of Natural Justice

• While this decision may have been made under Canon 12.14.04 (which allows summary revocation of a license), that canon is not a license for arbitrary punishment.

• It is presumably meant for clear cases of scandalous conduct—such as sexual misconduct or criminal behavior.

• Its application here is deeply problematic and raises serious concerns under Canon 9.8, which guarantees priests:

1. Notice of charges and evidence.

2. A formal hearing where they can respond.

3. Presumption of innocence.

4. Right to counsel and appeal.

• None of these safeguards appear to have been followed. If a priest can be summarily dismissed based on nothing more than “interpretation,” then no priest in the ACC is safe from politically motivated purges.

I Will Not Let This Go

• As a priest of this Church, I cannot and will not remain silent.

• I have informed my Bishop of my objection—and, so far, he has not ordered me to stand down. Like me, he believes in free speech.

• I will be exploring all available actions to appeal this decision or assist Fr. Robinson in doing so.

• Justice must be done. If it is not, then this decision will haunt the ACC far longer than anything Fr. Robinson ever did. Just look at the negative reaction through Anglican media such as Anglican Unscripted and from many notable clergy and Christians including Eric Metaxas.