Father Charles E. Coughlin: Forgotten Founder of Talk Radio? By Chris White

   Charles Edward Coughlin (1891-1979) was born in Ontario Canada to Irish Catholic parents and felt called to the priesthood during his teens.  After graduating from Seminary and teaching at a Catholic college for 7 years, he migrated to the United States by way of Detroit Michigan where he was assigned a small church of about 26 families.

   Father Coughlin was greatly influenced in his thinking by Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical On the Condition of the Working Class which was written in 1891 but was part of his seminary training (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html).  In it the pope called for great reforms in western society to improve the lot of the lower classes and create a more just society.  By this time Industrialization had become widely established in the western world, but organizations and laws to protect the rights of the worker, lagged so far behind, that the individual laborer was marginalized while investors and company owners grew fabulously wealthy.  The general mood of the day among the lower classes was to turn towards socialism as a means of redressing the great unbalance that existed.  Pope Leo XIII considered socialism a spiritual error and contrary to human nature which ordinarily and rightly desires private ownership of goods attained through their labors.  The pope called on Church leaders, captains of Industry, and the world’s governments to take positive actions to alleviate the hard working and living conditions of the lower classes.  This became the core of Father Coughlin’s political thinking for the rest of his life but this also regularly came out in his preaching.  He was neither a socialist or capitalist, but stood somewhere in between the two.

 

  Sometimes bad things happen in our lives that though painful, open the door of opportunity.  In 1926, the Ku Klux Klan burned a cross on the front lawn of Father Coughlin’s parish church because they didn’t appreciate Roman Catholicism in general and Father Coughlin’s reforming views in particular.  Local radio station WJR invited him to speak on the air as sort of a rebuttal to his critics and it was so popular that soon a weekly broadcast was born. 

   CBS picked up the broadcast and began to air it nationwide on their network free of charge.  Over time Coughlin became quite critical of then President Herbert Hoover’s policies which he and many others thought were perpetuating the misery of the Great Depression (in the early years of the depression the national unemployment rate was 26% and there was no social safety net).

   When CBS asked him to tone down his rhetoric, he refused and CBS cancelled their free sponsorship.  When the free sponsorship got cancelled, Father Coughlin began raising funds to continue the broadcast and was quite successful in doing so.  One of the fruits of the radio show was that Father Coughlin attracted more people into the church and soon his parish sanctuary had to be remodeled to accommodate 600 worshippers on Sundays.

  In the 1932 election, Father Coughlin became an ardent supporter of candidate Franklin Delano Roosevelt for President.  His line was “It is Roosevelt or Ruin for America” as the Great Depression continued and worsened.  His endorsement of Roosevelt was so strong that he boldly declared “The New Deal is Christ’s Deal” and that “God is directing President Roosevelt”.Ironically, when he began seeing that Roosevelt supported capitalistic ideas, he cooled off about him considerably and founded an organization supporting of worker’s rights called the National Union for Social Justice.  The platform for this organization whose membership was in the millions called for nationalization of major utilities and the railroads and protection of worker’s rights. 

   Father Coughlin wasn’t against capitalism just unfettered capitalism, he was also against communism and socialism.  His political ideas centered around the rights of the common man and in many ways were similar to those of William Jennings Bryan a decade before.  He was deeply suspicious of big government but even more so of big-business.  His belief in the nationalization of utilities sprang from his view that the resources they made their profits from, were actually god-given resources for all of humanity.  In one sense, he was right, but what he failed to see is that while God indeed did create things like coal and electricity, He did not put up power poles and rail lines to deliver these items to the general public.

   One interesting aspect of Coughlin’s political views was on monetary policy.  He latched on to the idea that gold, which was the basis of our currency at the time, was not the measure but the master of its value.  He strongly agitated during the depression that the value of gold be arbitrarily doubled which would then justify doubling the money supply, while people’s debts would be much smaller by comparison.  This was rejected early on by President Roosevelt as a cure for the Great Depression, but components of this idea were studied and adopted by Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve in recent years to prevent a full-on Depression in 2008.  Does this idea work or create even more problems?  This is yet to be determined.  

   After 1936, Coughlin fell into great public disgrace for being supportive of the fascist policies of Hitler and Mussolini.  His view was that their policies were the antidote to communism.  He also blamed the Great Depression on a conspiracy of Jewish bankers and believed the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was also the work of the Jews.  He felt that Nazism and Fascism were nothing more than European responses to the threat of Bolshevism which was being instigated by a group of evil Jews.  Despite this, Coughlin claimed he was not anti-semitic and that he welcomed all Jews of good will.  When WWII began, Coughlin denounced the atrocities and the Nazis, but his reputation had already been damaged by then having been on the wrong side of Naziism.  Many radio stations started dropping his show, but faced with angry picketers for doing so, they found themselves restoring the program to their schedules.  

 

  He also began a newspaper called Social Justice that became a forum for his Anti-Semitic views.  Although the Vatican certainly wanted him silenced, it was pressure from the Roosevelt administration that led to the cancellation of his radio program.  Interestingly, Roosevelt who was a Protestant, went to Joseph P. Kennedy, president Kennedy’s father and a Roman Catholic himself, and asked him to help tone down Father Coughlin.

   After Pearl Harbor, America was a different place.  Father Coughlin was considered seditious and controversial and the rules of Broadcasting were changed by the FCC to contain anyone who was quite controversial or in opposition to the government.  When Father Coughlin’s radio show was finally cancelled, he continued to produce his newspaper, but this got shut down when the Postmaster general shut down Coughlin’s right to use the U.S. mail to distribute his paper because its views were not supportive of the administration or the war effort.  Essentially the Roosevelt administration changed the laws on free speech even though it was their constitutional responsibility to protect it, and all of their efforts were targeted to shut down Father Coughlin.  Many of the FCC rules were still in place until the era of Ronald Reagan when he had them revised back in favor of free speech.  This deregulation paved the way for the modern era of talk radio where equal time for alternative viewpoints is no longer required.

 

   In 1942, Father Coughlin’s bishop ordered him to cease and desist from all politics and to return to his duties as a parish priest which he did until his retirement in 1966.  From then until his death in 1979, Father Coughlin continued to write pamphlets denouncing the evils of communism.

During his peak years on the radio as many at 30 million listeners regularly tuned in to his broadcasts.  Just to give some perspective, this number is the equivalent to having the combined  audiences of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.  The difference of course is that Father Coughlin worked at a time when there were substantially less choices of who to listen to than there are today.  His mailroom received 80,000 letters a week.  

   Many commentators suggest the appeal of Father Coughlin in America was his isolationist views (America first, International relations second) and his penchant for conspiracy theories about Wall Street, The Federal Reserve, and the Federal Government.  Contemporaries of the era said that he spoke with such passion that even though he rambled and often repeated himself, it was a thrill to hear.  When people came to his rallies, the excitement was said to be comparable to what was happening in Germany with Hitler and his Nazi rallies.  People were worked up into state of great excitement and excess.  Other commentators on the art of radio said that Coughlin had a deep, rich, honey-like voice that was very manly and soothing and that even if you wanted to turn the dial past him, the quality of his voice would draw you back.

   From the perspective of today, Father Coughlin looks like a bit of a hate-monger and bleeding-heart liberal blended with populism and a potent elixer of religion .  He definitely demonized people he disagreed with and in some cases quite unjustly.  But it is always best to try to understand a man in the context of his times.  The Great Depression was a desperate time for 1 in 4 Americans.  There were many voices in this time calling for America to try socialism because it seemed that capitalism had failed us.  It doesn’t seem untoward that Father Coughlin, in touch with the needs of his congregation and a common man himself would hold such views.  He was no economist or politician, just a shepherd of souls.  Perhaps we should indulge him a bit for his very un-nuanced views.

On the other side of the equation, while I can sympathize with the need for national unity in a time of great peril, as was World War II, my personal opinion is America has always been well-served by its Constitution and Bill of Rights.  In light of that, the suppression of Father Coughlin’s rights to be a voice of dissent, looks to me like the government over-reach of the worst kind.  Nevertheless, Father Coughlin truly was a broadcasting pioneer and being a pioneer of any kind has always been fraught with peril.

Transubstantiation for "Dummies" by Chris White

Pope Benedict XVI at mass.

I say this ‘tongue and cheek’ because the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation is actually difficult to follow without a fairly broad understanding of theology and history.  It is my hope that this article will add clarity for those wanting to understand how the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist ( often called Communion by Christians of all denominations) differs from the Protestant conception.  Just as a point of reference, I make no claims of expertise on Roman Catholic doctrine, having never been Catholic myself.  On the other hand, as an evangelical Christian (and ordained minister) I do recognize the historic debt the church owes to Catholicism for its propagation and perpetuation of the gospel in the world for nearly two millennia.  Because of this, I am committed to a fair-minded and even handed treatment of all things Roman Catholic even if my own faith commitment and understandings differ considerably.

At least part of the reason why the church in general has had different understandings of the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist (a Greek word for thanksgiving) is that the words of Jesus on the matter seem to lend themselves easily to a variety of interpretations.  Consider the words of Christ in John 6: ^“ So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.  For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.  Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.  As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.  This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread  the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”  In context Jesus was speaking of himself as the true bread of heaven as opposed to the manna that was given Israel as a temporary measure during their wanderings in the wilderness.  But in both cases, the faithful must eat something to survive.  Another passage of greater importance is Jesus’ words at the institution of the Lord’s Supper in Luke 22:14-20: “ And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him.  And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.  For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”  And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves.  For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”  And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.”  Once again, where this leads is where you place your emphasis.  Do we take “this is my body” and “do this in remembrance of me” literally or figuratively or both?  I’ll come back to these passages in my conclusion but I hope you can see where there might be room for the minds of godly people to entertain a variety of interpretations on what Jesus meant in His teachings.

In its barest essence transubstantiation refers to a change in the communion elements of bread and wine that occurs when an officially ordained ministrant of the Roman Catholic Church prays the prayer of consecration during the Eucharistic celebration.  While the elements remain in taste, touch, and appearance as bread and wine, they become spiritually transformed and their actual substance becomes the flesh and blood of our Savior Jesus Christ.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church as presented by the late Pope John Paul II, this is an un-bloody sacrifice in the present where the once-for-all death of Christ for our sins, is re-presented to the church body.  As they eat of these elements grace is received, the Lord is worshipped, and sanctifying faith is infused.  You can see that Transubstantiation relies heavily on literal understanding of Jesus’ words in John 6 and Luke 22. 

Transubstantiation seems  to be at least a rudimentary  idea that is found in the church of antiquity, but it was not until the Fourth Lateran Council (held in Rome) in 1215 that it became the fully articulated doctrine it is today.  Transubstantiation was later affirmed at the Council of Trent in 1551 and has remained the official position of the Roman Catholic church ever since.  But there are other points of view on communion that sprang forth during the Protestant Reformation.

Within the fold of Protestantism there are essentially two views of the Eucharist, one similar and the other completely dissimilar to the doctrine of Transubstantiation.  The Lutheran view, often called Consubstantiation, but more properly known as Sacramental Union, holds that the consecrated bread and wine are not at all changed in their substance, but the actual body and blood of the Lord are spiritually united to them.  This is closely related to other Christological doctrines such as His dual nature and His Ascension.  When the Lord was incarnated, He had a fully formed human nature (a union of body and soul) that was knit to His divine nature.  They were two natures joined in perfect union.  Even so, the divine presence of the Lord Jesus, now dwelling in heaven, is no longer limited by specific locality, but is able to be spiritually present anywhere, everywhere, at any time.  In the Eucharistic celebration then, when the minister prays the words of consecration over the bread and wine, the spiritual presence of Christ joins the elements that the participants will be eating.  In other words, like Jesus Himself, the consecrated elements have a dual nature.

 The other view, held by Baptists and many other evangelical groups, is called Memorialism.  This view emphasizes Jesus’ words at the institution of the Lord’s supper in Luke 22:19 “do this in remembrance of me”.  In this conception, the bread and wine go through no change but rather are symbols used to bring to remembrance the salvation event of the cross.  Critical to this view is the presentation of Holy Scripture alongside the Lord’s Supper which brings meaning to the event and is used by the Holy Spirit to strengthen the faith of the participating believer.

In evaluating these positions I want to come back to the scriptures that I presented above.  In John 6 Jesus references two breads that came from heaven: the manna and his incarnate life as the son of God.  The manna from God was eaten by Israel in the wilderness, but all who ate it still died.  It was literal food.  Jesus claims that those who eat of his flesh and blood will not die but have eternal life.  Transubstantiation would certainly fulfill this requirement of eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ, but what makes this questionable is whether this is what Jesus meant by these words.  When He spoke them He had not yet instituted the Lord’s Supper, that was 1-2 years in the future.  Secondly, this passage is part of several discourses where Jesus likened Himself to something familiar with the phrase “I am the…......(bread of life, good shepherd, the door, the way).  It seems obvious in the larger picture that Jesus is speaking figuratively not literally since we know Jesus wasn’t a shepherd but a carpenter and a rabbi; and he was certainly not a door or a roadway, but a man.  It seems that the type of “partaking” Jesus commands is to believe in Him as the Messiah whom God has sent.  Just so, the eating Jesus is suggesting is the act of partaking of His life by trusting Him as Savior, for the giving of His body and blood was for that very purpose.  In the Luke 22 passage Jesus is actually reshaping a symbolic  “Old Covenant” meal.  The many elements of the Passover were symbols of God’s provision and deliverance in the Exodus that also pointed towards the coming Deliverer.  The elements of bread and wine were the symbols Christ chose because they represent the pouring out of his life for our salvation.  I would also point out that Jesus was physically with them when He said the bread and wine were his flesh and blood and so the more natural understanding of this would be figurative rather than literal.

Does this mean that the Memorialist view is the most Biblical and therefore the right one?  In one sense yes, because the bread and wine symbolize and call our attention back to the great salvation we have received because of the cross.  We eat often because food only nourishes us temporarily.  While I believe a person who has trusted Christ and has been baptized remains in a state of grace, our daily lives, so full of our own sin and touched by the sins of other, regularly puts us in a state of discouragement and forgetfulness of our salvation.  The Eucharistic meal reminds, refreshes, and returns our hearts to the reality that Jesus loves us and gave Himself for us.  But on the other hand, I question whether the Memorialist view completely articulates the fullness of the Eucharist.  When Christ instituted it He was with His disciples and it is He who said “wherever two or more are gathered there I am in their midst (Mt. 18:10)” and “surely I am with you even to the end of the age (Mt. 28:20).”  While these are general promises of his spiritual presence with his Church, would they be any less applicable in the case of the Lord’s Supper?   And so, while I’m uncertain the Bible articulates a full on Spiritual Union (as did Martin Luther) with the consecrated elements, I do believe the Spirit of the Lord is especially present when His people partake of communion in remembrance of Him.