Here's a "Blueprint For Anarchy" excerpt from Jimmy Akin, (snippets only). Akin concludes his treatment of John 6 by evaluating the misinterpretations of his priests by stating, "This isn't exegetical rocket science."
"Right now in the Sunday liturgy we're working our way through John 6, which contains the feeding of the 5,000 (John's version of it) and the Bread of Life discourse. Last Sunday contained the feeding of the 5,000, and I was annoyed when the priest at the Mass I was attending emphasized a perceived "sharing" aspect of the passage. He didn't go so far as to fully subvert the miracle. That is, he didn't say that it was a "miracle of sharing" where people's hearts were moved to share what they had rather than hording it for themselves--a repudiation of the physical miracle that occurred. But he seemed to be skirting the edge of that idea, without saying anything that would explicity [sic] mandate this interpretation."
"This Sunday there was a new priest, and he did the same thing. He didn't spend as much time on feeding (that was last week's reading, natch), but he did stress the generosity of the little boy sharing his lunch. He also misinterpreted the loaves as probably like rolls instead of probably like pitas or tortillas in form, though we can let that pass."
"And it's just annoying when preachers get so wrapped up in a sickly sweet, Hallmark card spirituality that they go off rhapsodizing about human sharing and generosity in a way that flies in the face of the text."
Well, its good thing Catholics don't have any problems with private interpretation. That infallible magisterium sure puts them at an advantage when they go to church. It's interesting to me that Akin corrects his priests by an appeal to... Scripture, and Scripture passages that lack an infallible interpretation. Perhaps instead of blogging his problems with his priests, he should contact a bishop? It all seems downright Protestant to me, but I'm biased.