I feel obliged to preface this homily with a health and safety warning: there will be references to Catholic theology.  I will put forth my best effort, however, to make the theological references as painless as possible. Consequently, I ask you to avoid both panic and slumber. 

From time to time, there are news reports of disagreements among Catholics about the Eucharist.  A recent study by the Pew Foundation reported that only one-third of Catholics in the United States believe that Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ.  Rather than feeling victimized by those nameless hordes of half-believers who denigrate my principles, I prefer more precise thought.  The need for precise thought is why the Catholic Church theologizes about Eucharist. 

From Christianity’s very beginnings, there have been varied views on the meaning of Eucharist; many of those were the result of misunderstanding.  Some have interpreted Eucharist as a metaphorical reference to Jesus, the Church community, or virtuous acts.  Others have interpreted Eucharist as physical flesh and blood, a magic talisman, or an abrupt incursion by the spiritual realm into the temporal. 

In contrast to the above, the Catholic Church’s theology of Eucharist has always been grounded in the Scriptures and the Church community’s historical experience.  The multiple sources of theology about Eucharist require that Eucharist is understood to be a multivalent reality; in fact, this is true of all Sacraments.   

In Catholic theology, Eucharist is the Sacramental presence of the Crucified and Risen Lord; Eucharist is also the renewal of the Baptismal Covenant, the presence of the Church, an expression of the Church’s faith, a pledge of salvation, an exhortation to repentance and reform, and more.   

Looking at today’s Gospel reading from the point of view of Catholic theology about Eucharist, there are some theological facts one must acknowledge about the truth revealed through this text of Scripture.  I’d like to address one of those theological facts, namely, the one pertaining to the references to “bread” and the “bread of life.” 

The “bread of life” discourse in John’s Gospel mentions both the bread Jesus provided in his miraculous feeding of the five thousand and Jesus’ designation of himself as “bread from heaven.”  These references to bread are examples of the first type of analogy identified in the theology of Thomas Aquinas.  “Bread” is something predicated of Eucharist, Jesus’ teaching, and Jesus’ person, but it remains an analogy to physical food.  It is important to note that these statements are theological analogy, that is, statements about proportional relationships; they are not literal statements. 

The “bread of life” discourse does not say that Jesus is bread in a literal sense, nor that bread is literally Jesus.  Admittedly, for some people, bread is their god; St. Paul adequately described such people when he wrote, “their god is their stomach.” (Phil 3:19)  The “bread of life” discourse does not encourage this, or any, form of idolatry. 

While Jesus isn’t food in a literal sense, and food should be no one’s god, Jesus and food have something essential in common: we need them.  Of course, we don’t need Jesus and food in the same way; therefore, we rely on Thomas’s theology of analogy.  Food is necessary to maintain life and Jesus is necessary to maintain life, but those two statements differ proportionally and, therefore, cannot be reduced to being mere literal statements. 

When religious language, such as Jesus’ statement about being bread, is interpreted literally, it becomes false.  The “bread of life” discourse provides a clear example of the danger of misunderstanding religious language as literal language. 

The crowd whom Jesus fed miraculously was interested only in the immediate gratification of their physical needs.  Jesus offered signs that pointed to eternal salvation rather than to physical gratification.  The crowd misunderstood both Jesus and his miracle because they equated their interior restlessness with physical appetite; Jesus identified their restlessness as hunger for God. 

The crowd’s literal-mindedness led them to understand Jesus as an earthly king.  In doing so, they made it impossible for themselves to see his Divine nature.  The crowd misunderstood a religious truth as literal truth and, in so doing, denied themselves both. 

If you haven’t gone neurotic or comatose by reading the above discussion, please find comfort in the fact that there is a practical application of all that abstract thought. 

One of the explanations proposed for the existence of evil in the world is that events such as sadness, destruction, or loss exist in order to prepare the way for a better situation, a greater good, or a bigger blessing.  This gross misunderstanding of the nature of good and evil is the result of misinterpreting religious language as literal.  Misunderstandings of this type abound. 

It is valid to say that God is the Creator of all, but it is invalid to say that God causes, permits, or tolerates evil occurrences.  It is valid to say that God is all-powerful, but it is invalid to say that God operates the universe in the way a puppeteer operates a marionette.  It is valid to say that God is all-loving, but invalid to say that God’s care for creatures is patterned on human love.  These, and similar, distinctions are possible and comprehensible when one acknowledges that religious truth is relational rather than literal. 

When religious language is understood as literal, God becomes indistinguishable from creation, and good becomes indistinguishable from evil.  It is not God’s desire that we live in confusion about the nature of good and evil.  Rather, it is God’s desire that we follow the path through this life that leads to eternal life and unending joy.  Following this path requires that one first see the deficient nature of all evil and, by doing so, see the redeeming nature of uncreated good.  This knowledge is the bread with which God offers to feed us; it is interpersonal knowledge of Jesus, the bread of life. 

If your vision of God and the world seems a little blurred, there is an easy remedy: learn the truth that Jesus reveals by learning about him – not as an idea or object, but as a divine person who waits to encounter you with redeeming grace. 

God speaks to us so that we can learn who God is – not merely for us to learn information – but to learn who God is in relationship to us and the world.  Learning who God is feeds us with God’s Word and leads us to eternal life.