1892 LETTERS 267 



his answer was to be used in polemical discussion — 

 was sought because an answer from him would be 

 decisive and would obviate the repetition of state- 

 ments which to a Catholic were painfully irreverent, 



HoDESLEA, Feb. 3, 1892. 



Sir — I regret that you have had to wait so long for a 

 reply to your letter of the 27th. Your question required 

 careful consideration, and I have been much occupied with 

 other matters. 



You ask (i), whether the sacramental bread is or is not 

 " voided like other meats " ? 



That depends on what you mean, firstly by " voided," 

 and, secondly, by " other meats." Suppose any " meat " 

 (I take the word to include drink) to contain no 

 indigestible residuum, there need not be anything 

 " voided " at all — if by " voiding " is meant expulsion 

 from the lower intestine. 



Such a meat might be " completely absorbed for the 

 sustenance of the body." Nevertheless, its elements, in 

 fresh combinations, would be eventually " voided " through 

 other channels, e.g. the lungs and kidneys. Thus I should 

 say that under normal circumstances all " meats " (that is 

 to say, the material substance of them) are voided sooner 

 or later. 



Now, as to the particular case of the sacramental wafer 

 and wine. Taking their composition and the circumstances 

 of administration to be as you state them, it is my opinion 

 that a small residuum will be left undigested, and will be 

 voided by the intestine, while by far the greater part will 

 be absorbed and eventually " voided " by the lungs, skin, 

 and kidneys. 



If any one asserts that the wafer and wine are voided 

 by the intestine as such, that the " pure flour and water " 

 of which the wafer consists pass out unchanged, I am of 

 opinion he is in error. 



