Was it right, and why, and why this doesn't mean we need not follow the Bibles teaching to a T.

Are you referring to when he was given the showbread to eat? That was sacred, holy, bread normally reserved for the priest. It was a type of the Eucharist, and is now for any Catholic in a state of grace.

Yes. That is the incident I'm referring to. David broke the old law to eat it, right?

Since it was the priest Ahimelech who gave it to him, after questioning whether he and his men had been with women, then no, David did not break any laws.

Werr non-priests allowed to eat it?

Ordinarily, no. However, since David and his men did not have sexual relations, the priest gave his permission.

And since Christ condoned it, so should we. Mark 2:23-28.

And yet Christ was not a do-as-you-want type. And so I ask how it can be resolved.

No resolution is necessary, when you're hungry a whole lot of things that wouldn't be justified in normal conditions become acceptable. Ordinarily, theft is bad, but if you're hungry and the only way you can get food is to steal it, theft becomes acceptable. This isn't even a Jesus thing, Jesus was merely appealing to a principle that the Pharisees already accepted.

Read Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q.66, a.7: "Is it lawful to thieve in a case of necessity?" Aquinas's answer is yes, because he sees property as common in cases of need. In a sense, then, in need, it is no longer theft, at least not in the common use of the word (taking something that is not yours or common to all).

Question: Is it moral for a starving person to steal the Eucharist?

The Eucharist is not food

No, because that would be sacrilege. The showbread is not the equivalent of the Eucharist, though it is certainly one of its types.

But one has to be extremely careful about applying that kind of logic because that is the justification offered by every shoplifter and every thief for every active theft that's ever been committed in the history of the world. "I want it it's unfair that I don't have it therefore I have the right to take it" whether it's a loaf of bread an iPhone 11, a Rolex watch or the Mona Lisa.

People are extremely good at finding a moral justification for whatever it is they want to do.

Not really. The logic doesn't apply to those who are not in grave need.

But many who are NOT in grave need will say they are in order to justify theft.

I suggest there are two tests in cases like this:

1. Will you suffer death or grievous harm if you do not steal?
2. Will you inflect death or grievous harm if you steal what another person needs?

To justify theft, you must apply both tests.

Somebody said that since Jesus condoned it, it means we should end all rigid legalism, including in Church discipline. What do you think of this line of thought?

If you follow a horse long enough, you'll find that line of thought on the ground.

My horse is offended by that remark.

Father should go to horse sensitivity training....