A President and the Eucharist

No U.S. President has written an extensive theological treatise on — or against — the Eucharist; but John Quincy Adams came the closest. 

In April 1812, the future president criticized the doctrine of the Real Presence for cultivating “pernicious tendencies” that “enslave the human mind” to the “arbitrary dominion of the priesthood.” Though written more than two centuries ago, Adams’ objections — rooted in a misunderstanding of transubstantiation, Scripture, and the nature of freedom — remain emblematic of the divisions persisting among Christians today.

Instilled with the foundations of Christian morality during childhood, Adams devoted much study, ink, and activity on religion and spirituality, deeming it of great import. He particularly held a “deep reverence” for the Bible. This was not merely reserved for personal examination — of which he did plenty — but spurred his actions, serving as the American Bible Society’s vice president from its inception (1818) to his death (1848). As a Unitarian, he was no stranger to pews, regularly attending Sunday services and even Catholic Mass throughout his life.

Though a proponent of Enlightenment sensibilities, Adams believed human reason concluded God’s existence, as he once wrote: 

“[I]t is so obvious to every reasonable being that he did not make himself, and that the world which he sees could as little make itself, that the moment we begin to exercise the power of reflection, it seems impossible to escape the conviction that there is a Creator.”

Beyond fostering one’s moral compass, Adams saw religiosity as a means for society to pursue civic virtue at-large, believing “democracy was founded on Scripture,” and the “Declaration of Independence was a realization in political form of the Gospels,” according to James Traub, author of John Quincy Adams: Militant Spirit. 

Yet the nation’s sixth president often “scrutinized religion,” questioning the miraculous: such as “the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and the Bible as divine revelation,” asserts Margaret Hogan, former managing editor of The Adams Family Papers. Similarly, human reason — or the “umpire of our faith” as he described — precluded him from believing in transubstantiation; and on April 12, 1812, while serving as America’s first minister to Russia, Adams explained why. 

In the dissertation, prompted by a non-Catholic preacher’s comments, Adams acknowledges he “cannot reject a doctrine merely because my Reason will not sanction it” — and even suggests “appeal[ing] to a higher tribunal” for further spiritual guidance. Indeed, in his estimation, divine action need not be entirely submitted to human comprehension. 

However, he remains suspicious of the pope and priests, the latter who are “weak, corrupt and fallible men like ourselves.” With this lens, viewing parishioners as being shackled to “priestcraft,” Adams affirms to himself the Real Presence’s “absurdity,” and the priesthood as the “principal ground for disbelieving” transubstantiation entirely. He writes:

“Could I once bring myself to believe that by a special power from Heaven, a Priest can turn a wafer into a God and a Cup of Wine into the Blood of my Redeemer, the next and natural step would be to believe that my eternal weal or woe depended upon the fiat of the same Priest— That the keys of Heaven were in his hands to lock and unlock at his pleasure, and that the happiness or misery of my existence in the world to come, depended upon the chance of propitiating not the Deity but his Minister— All these tenets of the Romish Church are streams from the fountain of transubstantiation— The doctrine is pernicious.”

Adams then argues Jesus Christ’s words — to eat His flesh and drink His blood, as He explains in John’s Gospel — are to be “understood in a spiritual, or figurative sense.” Still, even if at the Last Supper Christ performed a miracle, this phenomenon cannot be “repeated by every Priest, at every Commemmoration [sic] of that Event,” since “He promises no such thing,” the future president suggests. By perpetuating this claim, Adams sees priests as exploiting the faithful “under the mask of holy Mystery,” which is scandalous, anti-Christian, and a “dreadful” abuse of Christ’s words.    

From the Reformation to the present day, these criticisms are all too familiar, and still sources of contention between Catholics and Protestants. Yet many saints and scholars, like St. Paul, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas, all pillars of Western philosophy who influenced the Founding Fathers, have illuminated the Eucharist’s reality as body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. The early Church Fathers believed this to be so — that Christ was literal, not figurative. 

This is not the invention of “priestcraft,” as Adams contends. The Lord’s command at the Last Supper “to repeat his action and words ‘until he comes’” is not merely to memorialize the event a la a historical reenactment, but as a “liturgical celebration,” as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches. Christ affirmatively states, “Do this in memory of me” — this being an imperative word. Christians must consider what this entails lest we neglect or misconstrue Christ’s directive to our souls’ detriment. For Catholics, as Bishop Robert Barron preaches, Our Lord is not “just engaging in symbolic speech” but “divine law”; indeed, “God is speaking something into being” as He did at the creation of the world. 

Why, then, would Christ institute the Eucharist if it bore no importance to our eternal salvation? And why would the early Church — and 1,500 years prior to the Reformation — subscribe to this doctrine if untrue? As American author Flannery O’Conner aptly stated, “If [the Eucharist] is just a symbol, to hell with it.”

But the consecration needs servants — an agent to be a sacramental conduit of God’s grace; hence the priesthood. As the Catechism teaches, the “Holy Spirit enables [priests] to act in the person of Christ the head, for the service of all the members of the Church.” Adams — and critics today — misunderstand that this role was not a new invention, but traces back into ancient history to Melchizedek in the Old Testament. The Scripture, in this way among others, affirms the priesthood.

Human reason would also affirm that the true miracle is existence — that we are able to explore and understand divine revelation. This is often taken for granted. If reality is miraculous, and human reason concludes God’s existence and omnipotence, as Adams affirms, why can’t He perform miracles through priests? After all, through Christ’s instruction, the Apostles — even Judas — performed miracles though they are not divine. The same phenomenon is occurring at the consecration. To associate the priesthood then as a form of “dominion” over the mind, and as a craft akin to witchery, is theologically erroneous.

Adams’ main error, however, is implying the Eucharist as an instrument of imprisonment, binding the faithful’s minds and souls to priestly whims. Yet this could not be further from the truth. If Christ is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, which the Apostles and early Church believed, then the Eucharist is freedom itself. And paradoxically, the more we bind ourselves to this truth, as St. Paul teaches, the freer we are. 

For a man deeply concerned with liberty, Adams’ rejection of the Eucharist reveals the limitations of Enlightenment reason when confronted with divine mystery. But we cannot — and will not — solve every mystery or answer all questions. Rather, faith requires surrender, trusting in Christ and finding fulfillment in Him. If Christ, our friend, foresaw the Eucharist as good then it cannot be ignored. 

Ultimately, the Blessed Sacrament is an invitation to greater intimacy: to be physically, mentally, and spiritually nourished by Christ Himself. God gave us reason to reveal this truth.

For our brothers and sisters in Christ who differ on the Eucharist or priestly authority, our shared Christian witness is weakened by division. Though theological differences will persist in the immediate future, efforts at Christian unity must be pursued like Pope Leo XIV’s recent call to pray for such ends. We are baptized into “one body and one spirit,” as St. Paul teaches, and we will “recline at table in the kingdom of God,” as Christ states. 

This reality is already visible at Mass, where the faithful partake in the Eucharist — the source and summit of Christian life. It is not “pernicious,” but a gift that unites, sanctifies, and sustains believers amid the trials of the world and fuels incalculable good.

May we pray for our Christian brothers and sisters, and for a unified Church.