An understandable objection some Catholics raise against "Protestants" is the supposed hypocrisy in taking Genesis literally, whereas I take the Eucharist figuratively. If we take the Genesis account of creation literally, how can we justify taking "this is my body" allegorically?
The first thing to note is that to say Creationists take Genesis literally is a somewhat misleading phrase. Nobody takes Genesis "literally". There are things within it that are obvious figures of speech akin to the ones we use (e.g. it describes the sun and moon as being "in the sky"), as well as things that are of disputed meaning (e.g. the exact nature of the serpent: Was it Satan?). A more accurate term would be that Genesis should be taken as historical narrative, complete with all the figures of speech common to ancient Jewish historical narratives.
The second thing to note is that if there is any hypocrisy in view here, it is actually on the part of the Catholic Church. Jesus constantly spoke in parables and figures of speech, to the extent where the Apostles were amazed on the few occasions He didn't (John 16:29). Jesus used numerous figures of speech that even the Catholic Church recognises are figurative, as does the rest of the New Testament. Jesus is the true vine, He is not literally a vine. Jesus is the lion of Judah, He is not literally a lion. Neither is He literally a lamb, though He is the Lamb of God. Jesus is not a door, neither is He knocking on our door. He is not literally a shepherd, nor are we literally His sheep. Woe betide you if you try to climb back inside your mother's womb, and my friends, if you hate your mother and father as Jesus said you have to, John tells us you have no life in you. Need I go on? The truth is, there are so many statements made by, or about Jesus, that are obviously not literal that I simply could not take "this is my body" and "this is my blood" literally without hypocrisy, and neither can the Catholic Church.
Ultimately, Genesis and the Eucharist simply do not compare. One can write whole books on why Genesis absolutely must be taken as historical narrative. It is impossible to sensibly interpret it any other way. The entire Bible becomes a complete mess if you don't take Genesis as it is written, and Genesis itself becomes utterly meaningless. By contrast, the entire defence for the literal nature of the Eucharist comes from a few mis-quoted verses, and "it's tradition". And tragically, the latter is the most common tactic. The Scriptures are often completely forsaken in favor of tradition. Of course, by contrast, though it can be done, no one needs to resort to tradition in order to defend a natural interpretation of Genesis. It's easier to just open the book and read it.
The Lord's Supper ultimately reads like the metaphor it is. As if it wasn't obvious enough Jesus was speaking figuratively, He actually says "do this in remembrance of me". Even in John 6, a commonly misquoted passage regarding the Lord's Supper, Jesus clarifies that to eat His flesh and drink His blood is a spiritual teaching (John 6:63), which represents coming to and believing in Him (John 6:35). Additionally, Paul tells us that in repeating the Lord's supper, we proclaim the Lord's death until He comes (1 Corinthians 11:26).
Furthermore, whereas the Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is a true and proper sacrifice (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1366-1367), the Bible makes it quite clear that Christ's sacrifice on the cross was done once for all, so that it need not be repeated on a regular basis like the old sacrificial system (Hebrews 7:27). This quite literally makes it a Gospel issue. If you believe you must take the Eucharist over and over again to be saved, you are saying Jesus' actual sacrifice on the cross was insufficient, and so you must continue the sacrifice at least once a week in order to retain salvation. And of course, let's not forget the Catholic Church also claims it is possible for those who do not know Christ to be saved if they sincerely seek God (CCC 847), contradicting their own teaching that John 6 is referring to the literal nature of the Eucharist. After all, here, Jesus says salvation is impossible without eating His flesh and drinking His blood, which those who do not know Christ obviously never do, figuratively or literally.
In other words, rather than exposing "Protestants" for hypocrisy because we interpret Scripture naturally, Catholics are exposed for both hypocrisy and fatal heresy for interpreting Scripture according to the dogmas of their Church. The Lord's Supper is so obviously a spiritual teaching that it all but says "by the way, this is a symbol" (though the Church "Fathers" occasionally said as much). It even goes to great lengths to explain the meaning of the metaphor. Furthermore, taking the Catholic interpretation results in both contradicting the Gospel and contradicting other Catholic doctrines. Ultimately, there is no consistent way to interpret the Lord's Supper as being literal, and the only reason people still do it is because, sadly, man's word often trumps God's word in the eyes of the unsaved. My Catholic friends, I urge you to repent, because Paul uses some very strong words about those who pervert the Gospel as the Catholic Church does (Galatians 1:8).