I do get that.

At some level, the cannibalism charge is natural from the language and to give credit to those who levy it, it comes from I think a position of taking the seriousness of what is going on into account.

But respectfully, my understanding of the sacrament convinces me that to try to own the cannibalism charge will permit ignorance of the basic physics of the process in those levying that charge.

Taking the body only, the transubstantiation is a piece of bread into the whole living body of Christ. Consuming the whole, living, body of Christ is just not the same as chewing a piece of flesh.

Not only would it be completely inappropriate to tear up the Christ with our teeth, but any regular piece of flesh has truly ceased to be a substance (and becomes a collection of bits of different, substances) once “bitten off” from whoever or whatever it was. And soon those bits of substances- muscle, sinew, etc will be substantially changed into the eater- and cease to exist as substances. That is cannibalism- and that is not happening in churches.

In the Eucharist (again just considering the body) Christ is not wholly present at the consecration moment but then mechanically transformed into a bunch of different body parts and substances by chewing.

Rather His whole living body becomes present at consecration, remains whole at consumption, still the same whole substance in/as each particle of the consumed species, and for as long as the underlying species exists. And whenever all particles of the species cease to exist inside the consumer, Christ whole living body is entirely gone from the physical place it had been (but Christ has/was not substantially changed).

This is my understanding.