It's not constipation at all, Susan, but something quite different.

In Auden's libretto for Paul Bunyan, it's referred to as "food delay", a term he'd learnt in America and considered very funny.

Dead right, m.  The present one is a major embarrassment, as you imply.

I'm no doctor but I know someone with the condition. As I understand it, slow transit means the food moves slowly, causing pain and a heavy, bloated feeling. But toilet habits can be quite normal and regular (I can't believe I'm writing this). With constipation, there can be none of the bloating or abdominal pain but toilet habits are irregular and difficult. The two conditions can overlap and one can be the cause of the other.

First religious, and now digestive, tracts...

Er, yes, tp.

It has always been permissible to celebrate mass in Latin. It is just that most catholics have preferred to have the service in the vernacular since it was allowed in the  1960s.  Not many have the resources to celebrate mass in Latin with the full wealth of catholic repertory, as at Westminster Cathedral.

Prior to the 1960s I get the impression that the majority of Roman Catholic churches did not celebrate mass with full music: in most cases they had said mass in Latin by the priest, with the laity sometimes singing hymns in the vernacular.

But whether mass was in Latin, or the vernacular I get the definite impression to my Anglican eyes, it was celebrated in a rushed, take-it-or-leave-it manner.  (To be positive, the catholic faithful are deeply unself-conscious at church.)

There is a possibility that they will now be allowed to attend mass according to the unreformed rite in Latin.  That in itself will make no difference to the music, which they could have now if they were able.

To my mind if you want to experience totally traditional liturgy with a wealth of music of unworldly beauty, you should look at your homeland, tp.

Oh !  Shurely not (hic).  Nay, nay and thrice nay. Methinks there are still only twelve signs of the zodiac in accordance with the ancient 'art' of astrology. Myself, I'm a true Piscean, born on the third of March (right in mid-sign as it were). I think that the noble art of astrology is very thaumaturgically mystical indeed and I would advise Mr Dawkins to completely abandon his current uninteresting, boring and dangerous research and take up the astrological cudgel. Although, of course, us Pisceans dont believe in astrology. It's a ..... (cont. on page 94).

All the constellations look like saucepans to me . 

Stars aside, I suppose it isn't completely inconceivable that the time of year you are born in might have some very, very marginal effect on how you eventually turn out. Availability of certain foods, hours of daylight, ambient temperatures at crucial stages in development? Can't see it amounting to anything much but, statistically, not totally  impossible?

Astrology is presumably failed science rather than failed religion, isn't it?