{"id":387,"date":"2018-12-08T17:45:39","date_gmt":"2018-12-08T09:45:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.jesus4lesbians.com\/?p=387"},"modified":"2018-12-24T22:17:25","modified_gmt":"2018-12-24T14:17:25","slug":"humanae-vitae-story-of-dissent-and-oppression-within-the-church","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/?p=387","title":{"rendered":"“Humanae Vitae”–story of dissent and oppression within the Church"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Fifty years ago [1968], Pope Paul VI issued an encyclical that shook the Catholic Church to its core by declaring that every use of artificial contraceptives is immoral. The document, “Humanae Vitae” (“Of Human Life”), was a shocker because many Catholics had hoped the pope, with the widening availability of the pill after its appearance in 1960, would open the way for Catholics to use the birth control pill.<\/p>\n

The encyclical continues to be controversial, with the hierarchy, including Pope Francis, supporting it while most Catholics ignore it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

When the encyclical was published on July 25, 1968, the response from Catholic moral theologians was overwhelmingly negative.<\/span> Although they liked many things in the encyclical, the universal prohibition against artificial contraception was not something they could support. They noted that almost all other Christian denominations approved of contraception and that the papally appointed commission to study the issue had recommended a more open position.<\/p>\n

The opposition of theologians<\/span> was not just behind closed doors. It was very public in scholarly articles, op-eds, news conferences <\/span>and signed petitions<\/a>. Both Catholic and secular media covered the dispute extensively.<\/span> Disagreements in the Catholic Church over sex made good copy.<\/p>\n

Nor were theologians the only ones to disagree. Some cardinals and bishops distanced themselves from the pope, pointing out that the document was not infallible teaching and that each person had to follow their conscience.<\/span> The German bishops issued the “Declaration of K\u00f6nigstein” that left to\u00a0individual conscience of lay people whether to use contraception or not.<\/p>\n

And much of the laity worldwide did follow their own consciences. Polls have shown that the overwhelming majority of Catholics do not accept the hierarchy’s teaching that all use of artificial contraceptives is immoral. In 2016, the Pew Research Center found only 8 percent of American Catholics agree that using contraceptives is morally wrong<\/span>. Catholic couples felt that they understood the situation better than celibate males.<\/p>\n

It is uncertain how many Catholics left the church over this teaching, but it is clear that even more stayed, continued to go to Communion, and simply ignored it. This was a remarkable change for Catholics who had deferred to the clergy on moral and doctrinal teaching. It gave rise to the concept of “cafeteria Catholics,” Catholics who picked and chose which teachings they would accept.<\/p>\n

Some in the hierarchy blamed dissenting theologians for leading the people astray. While it is true that the public debate eased the consciences of some Catholics, the vast majority of Catholic couples were making up their minds on their own. In fact, studies found that increasing numbers of Catholics were already using contraceptives in the 1950s.<\/p>\n

Rather than shoring up the authority of the hierarchy with the laity, “Humanae Vitae” undermined it. In the laity’s mind, if the church could be so wrong on this issue, why should they trust the church in other areas?<\/p>\n

“Humanae Vitae” was not just a dispute about sex. It quickly became a dispute over church authority.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Cardinal Karol Wojtyla of Krakow, Poland, was a member of the papal commission studying the question of birth control. The man who would become St. John Paul II missed the last meeting where a majority of the commission voted in favor of changing church teaching. As a result, his position on birth control was not well known. We now know that he supported the minority position and wrote directly to Paul VI supporting the retention of the church’s prohibition against artificial birth control.<\/p>\n

If his opposition to birth control had been widely known, would he have been elected pope? Certainly, any cardinal who supported changing the church teaching and voted for him regretted it later.<\/p>\n

John Paul understood that the debate over “Humanae Vitae” was as much about authority as sex. He was scandalized by the opposition of theologians and bishops to papal teaching. As a product of a persecuted church, he understood the importance of church unity. Once elected pope, he launched an inquisition against moral theologians who had spoken out against the encyclical. He was ably assisted in this effort by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, whom John Paul made <\/span>head of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. <\/span>Ratzinger succeeded John Paul as Pope Benedict XVI.<\/p>\n

Since most of the theologians at that time were priests or members of religious orders, John Paul was able to use their promise or vow of obedience to get them under control. They were removed from teaching positions in seminaries and universities, forbidden to write on sexual topics, and told to profess their acceptance of the encyclical. The training of priests was put into the hands of those who stressed papal authority and following rules rather than the reforms of Vatican II.<\/p>\n

Likewise, “Humanae Vitae” became a litmus test for the appointment of bishops. Loyalty to papal authority became the most important quality looked for in a potential bishop, trumping pastoral skill and intelligence. Over the almost three decades that he was pope, John Paul remade the hierarchy into a body that had little creativity or imagination in implementing the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Rather, they looked to Rome for leadership and stressed the importance of following rules.<\/p>\n

Today, many in the hierarchy are claiming that “Humanae Vitae” was prophetic in its conviction that contraceptives led to the separation of sex from procreation and therefore to conjugal infidelity, disrespect for women, gender confusion, and gay marriage. But the controversy was never over the encyclical as a whole; rather, it was over its prohibition of every single use of artificial contraception.\u00a0 To say that contraception caused all of these other problems is absurd, an insult to all the good people who have used contraceptives at some point in their lives.<\/p>\n

How should the church deal with this problem? It is probably impossible for it to simply admit it was wrong. The church is not very good at that. What it could do is say that abortion is a far greater evil, and anyone who might be tempted to have an abortion should practice birth control. The church should also stop supporting laws forbidding the sale or public funding of contraceptives. These would be small steps in reversing a 50-year-old mistake.\u00a0 (source<\/a>)<\/p>\n

==============================<\/p>\n

The vexed history of Blessed Paul VI\u2019s letter on life and love, published 50 years ago this week<\/h3>\n

In 1963, Father Andrew Greeley published an article citing studies that showed overwhelming support among American Catholics for the Church\u2019s teaching that artificial birth control is always wrong.<\/p>\n

\u201cCatholics accept the Church\u2019s teaching with a vengeance,\u201d Father Greeley wrote, adding that on this subject some Catholics were \u201cmore Catholic than the Church.\u201d<\/p>\n

Five years later, in July 1968, Pope Paul VI published his encyclical \u201cHumanae Vitae\u201d (\u201cOf Human Life\u201d), which reaffirmed the teaching. It was greeted by a storm of theological and popular dissent.<\/p>\n

Not long after, Father Greeley, a sociologist and novelist, declared the encyclical to be the source of many if not most ills in the Church. He didn\u2019t explain what happened between 1963 and 1968 to account for the change.<\/p>\n

Yet Catholic attitudes clearly did change. In 1973, demographers Charles Westoff and Larry Bumpass concluded that the use of contraceptives by American Catholic women shot up from 30 percent in 1955 to 68 percent in 1970.<\/p>\n

As for here and now, a Pew Research Center study two years ago found that even among Catholics who attend Mass weekly, only 13 percent thought contraception was wrong.<\/p>\n

Is that the end of the story? Hardly. While supporters of \u201cHumanae Vitae\u201d may now be comparatively few in number, the encyclical has the backing of a committed core of passionate defenders, including people who swear by Natural Family Planning and champion St. Pope John Paul II\u2019s innovative Theology of the Body.<\/p>\n

Since the time of Pope Paul VI, it has enjoyed the support of popes up to and including Pope Francis, who will canonize Pope Paul as a saint in October.<\/p>\n

The cover of a 50th anniversary edition of \u201cHumanae Vitae,\u201d published by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A fresh look<\/h3>\n

Against the background of the gap between Church teaching and its rejection by many of Church members, the 50th anniversary of \u201cHumanae Vitae\u201d is an appropriate \u2014 some would say urgently necessary \u2014 time to take a fresh look at what went into building Catholic dissent.<\/p>\n

To begin with, there is the obvious fact that the encyclical could hardly have appeared at a less auspicious time. In 1968, a cultural \u2014 and sexual \u2014 revolution was well underway in the United States and other countries, with a spirit of rebellion against whatever smacked of tradition or took a stand against self-indulgence spreading like wildfire.<\/p>\n

Opposition also was mounting to the growing U.S. involvement in the war in Vietnam, and campus protests were erupting throughout the country. In April, Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated, with his killing sparking riots, burning and looting in several cities, including Washington, D.C.<\/p>\n

Barely two months later, Robert F. Kennedy was gunned down in Los Angeles. President Lyndon Johnson, fearing public humiliation at the polls in November for his Vietnam policy, decided not to run for reelection. During the Democratic convention in Chicago, protesters clashed with police in the streets outside.<\/p>\n

For years, too, powerful groups and institutions, including the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, had been promoting population control, with Catholics among those targeted by the message.<\/p>\n

By 1968, breaking with previous policy, the government had started edging into the birth control business via Johnson\u2019s Great Society program. Government involvement in population control at home and abroad would soon skyrocket under President Richard Nixon. Inevitably, all this had an effect on Catholics. So did events within the Church.<\/p>\n

The Second Vatican Council had ended three years earlier, but the turmoil it unintentionally helped create was in full flood by 1968.<\/p>\n

Highly publicized departures from the priesthood and religious life, a phenomenon that began during the council, were still taking place.<\/p>\n

An ill-defined state of mind called \u201cthe Spirit of Vatican II\u201d persuaded many people that old beliefs and old values should \u2014 and probably would \u2014 be tossed aside. The teaching against artificial birth control was an obvious target for that way of thinking.<\/p>\n

The first oral contraceptive, Enovid, was approved by the FDA in 1960. WIKIMEDIA COMMONS<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Sowing the seeds<\/h3>\n

But the seeds of dissent had in fact been sown much earlier.<\/p>\n

Up to 1930, a substantial consensus in opposition to artificial contraception existed among Christian churches.<\/p>\n

But that year the Anglican bishops broke ranks at their Lambeth Conference, adopting a resolution giving guarded approval to the practice of artificial birth control by married couples in some circumstances. Other churches soon followed suit, and the consensus was no more.<\/p>\n

Pope Pius XI stood firm. In his encyclical \u201cCasti Connubii\u201d (\u201cOn Christian Marriage\u201d), dated Dec. 31, 1930, he issued a resounding defense of the Church\u2019s traditional teaching. It concluded with these words:<\/p>\n

\u201cAny use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.\u201d<\/p>\n

Pope Pius XII repeated the teaching. Speaking to a meeting of Italian midwives in October 1951, he recalled what Pope Pius XI had said, and declared: \u201cThis precept is in full force today as it was in the past, and so it will be in the future and always because it is not a simple human whim but the expression of a natural and divine law.\u201d<\/p>\n

As that suggests, the teaching wasn\u2019t new. Essentially the same thing had been said for centuries by those with teaching authority in the Church whenever they addressed the question.<\/p>\n

And although a scholar (and later a federal court judge) named John T. Noonan, in his influential 1965 book \u201cContraception,\u201d argued in favor of change, even Noonan was obliged to admit that, as he wrote, \u201cthe teaching on contraception is clear and apparently fixed forever.\u201d<\/p>\n

In April 1963, shortly before his death, Pope John XXIII had established a Pontifical Commission on Population, Family, and Birth Rate whose specific purpose was to prepare for the Holy See\u2019s participation in an upcoming conference sponsored by the United Nations and the World Health Organization.<\/p>\n

No one knew it then, but this body was to play a central role in the drama of dissent leading up to \u201cHumanae Vitae.\u201d<\/p>\n

Pope John died on June 3, 1963, and Cardinal Giovanni Montini of Milan was elected to succeed him. He took the name Paul VI.<\/p>\n

Although he supported the teaching on birth control, the new pope apparently thought oral contraceptives \u2014 \u201cthe Pill\u201d \u2014 might possibly be morally different from other forms of contraception. He therefore expanded the scope of the commission\u2019s work while also enlarging its membership. Soon it became popularly known as the \u201cbirth control commission.\u201d<\/p>\n

A detailed account of its work was written several years ago by Dr. Germain Grisez, a prominent American Catholic ethicist and moral theologian who died last February. It can be found on his website, \u201cThe Way of the Lord Jesus\u201d (www.twotlj.org\/Ford.html).<\/p>\n

A philosophy professor at Georgetown University at the time of the events he records, Grisez in 1965 published his first book, \u201cContraception and the Natural Law,\u201d in which he argued the case for the traditional teaching using a new theory of natural law based on human goods. (The argument, briefly, is that moral evil lies in freely willing and acting against fundamental goods of the human person, and contraception clearly does this in the case of the good of procreation.)<\/p>\n

Grisez was enlisted by Father John C. Ford, SJ, an American moral theologian and commission member, and the two men worked closely together in the commission\u2019s latter phases and later.<\/p>\n

Although the commission president, starting in February 1966, was the conservative Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, prefect of the Vatican\u2019s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, its secretary general, Father Henri de Riedmatten, OP, a staff member of the Vatican\u2019s Secretariat of State, tilted its work toward changing the teaching, according to Grisez.<\/p>\n

In addition, he writes, Father Ford found a number of theologians on the commission to be \u201cpredisposed to change.\u201d As the internal politicking continued, sentiment shifted in that direction.<\/p>\n

That remained the case after Pope Paul reorganized the group to include only cardinals and bishops \u2014 16 of them \u2014 as members, with the nonbishops designated experts.<\/p>\n

Matters came to a head in a series of meetings in April, May and June of 1966.<\/p>\n

The result was two documents \u2014 misleadingly labeled the \u201cmajority report\u201d and the \u201cminority report\u201d \u2014 laying out various arguments and considerations, which were presented to the pope.<\/p>\n

Pope Paul VI greets children as he visits the Church of St. Leo the Great in Rome March 31, 1968. CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE PHOTO\/GIANCARLO GIULIANI, CATHOLIC PRESS PHOTO<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Pressure on the pope<\/h3>\n

Not surprisingly, six months later, these and other commission documents were leaked to media and published in English and French \u2014 in the U.S., in the National Catholic Reporter. The move clearly seemed designed to put pressure on the pope.<\/p>\n

The story got headline coverage around the world. But Pope Paul made it clear he wasn\u2019t impressed, saying in an address in October 1966 that views generated within the birth control commission \u201ccannot be considered definitive.\u201d<\/p>\n

Finally, on Monday, July 29, 1968, Pope Paul released \u201cHumanae Vitae\u201d for publication. It repeated the Church\u2019s long-standing condemnation of all forms of artificial birth control. Each and every marital act, it said, \u201cmust of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.\u201d<\/p>\n

The pope had finally spoken. But in a way it was already too late. Many Catholics had already made up their minds by then, and often they had decided in favor of birth control.<\/p>\n

Many factors combined to produce this result. Pope Paul\u2019s long delay was among them.<\/p>\n

Presumably, he expected that Catholics would wait until the pope made up his mind and then obediently follow his lead.<\/p>\n

But instead of that happening, the delay gave proponents of change time to mobilize support for their position, while feeding the impression that Pope Paul would go along with them in the end and sometimes suggesting that it hardly mattered whether he did or didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

The media \u2014 increasingly including Catholic media \u2014 helped build this expectation of change. Even The Ladies Home Journal weighed in, with a 1966 article highly critical of \u201cthe rhythm method\u201d that concluded with these words: \u201cWhen there is this much widespread unhappiness, this much that is destructive of the very ideals of marriage the Church wants to preserve, something is wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n

The lay-edited Catholic journal Commonweal made the important point that the birth control debate was \u201ca focal point for all manner of issues far more basic\u201d than contraception.<\/p>\n

According to the magazine, these included the nature of marriage, \u201cthe role and value of the Church\u2019s teaching authority,\u201d conscience, natural law and \u201cthe nature of morality.\u201d<\/p>\n

Some prominent theologians also became advocates of change. These included well-known figures like Father Bernard Haring, CSSR, author of a popular moral theology text, and the American moralist Father Richard McCormick, SJ.<\/p>\n

Already, too, the Second Vatican Council had added fuel to the fire. That happened during the debate over \u201cGaudium et Spes,\u201d the council\u2019s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, with the question being what, if anything, the council should say about birth control.<\/p>\n

In the end, the Second Vatican Council settled for a footnote noting, at the insistence of Pope Paul, what Pope Pius XI had said about contraception back in 1930. But some still believe it would have been better if the bishops at Vatican II had been allowed to re-argue the question for themselves and settle it definitively there and then.<\/p>\n

And so it went. By the time \u201cHumanae Vitae\u201d finally came out, the idea that the Church\u2019s teaching would change was no longer a mere possibility, but for many people a virtual certainty. Disappointment and even anger were thus predictable early responses to the encyclical.<\/p>\n

Most bishops\u2019 conferences around the world declared their acceptance and assent. Most, but not all. Statements expressing some measure of disagreement \u2014 or at least nonacceptance \u2014 came from the hierarchies of France, the Netherlands, Canada, Germany, Austria <\/span>and Scandinavia.<\/span><\/p>\n

The bishops of the United States, meeting in November 1968, issued a long pastoral letter titled \u201cHuman Life in Our Day,\u201d expressing strong support for what the pope had said, which they called an \u201cobligatory statement.\u201d<\/p>\n

Pope Paul VI presides over a meeting of the Second Vatican Council in St. Peter\u2019s Basilica at the Vatican in 1963. CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE PHOTO\/CATHOLIC PRESS PHOTO<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A wider view<\/h3>\n

Apparently not content with talking about just one hot-button issue, however, the bishops also discussed the U.S. role in Vietnam, taking a skeptical view of what was going on there.<\/p>\n

Stranger still, in speaking of birth control, the pastoral letter included a section of \u201cNorms of Licit Theological Dissent\u201d that identified what was allowable by \u201cscholars\u201d engaged in \u201cprofessional theological work\u201d who disagreed with \u201cHumanae Vitae.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the real world, though, the dissent from the encyclical wasn\u2019t occurring in cloistered academic settings where scholars expressed themselves with \u201cprudence born of intellectual grace,\u201d but in a world of news conferences, sound bites and headlines where dissent tended to be raucous and far from graceful.<\/p>\n

That was the case, for example, with Father Charles Curran, at the time a theologian at the Catholic University of America, who called it \u201cincredible that the pope should be thinking of such a statement.\u201d<\/p>\n

After the encyclical appeared, Father Curran, enjoying maximum media support, proceeded to carry on what one writer calls a \u201cwell-planned strategy\u201d of opposition.<\/p>\n

Especially notable, too, was the so-called \u201cWashington case\u201d involving public dissent by 51 priests of the Archdiocese of Washington (a number eventually reduced to 19, many of the original group having quit the priesthood by then).<\/p>\n

When most of these men refused to back off, Cardinal Patrick O\u2019Boyle of Washington withdrew their faculties to preach and hear confessions. The dispute eventually went to Rome, where in 1970 the Vatican\u2019s Congregation for the Clergy found that Cardinal O\u2019Boyle had acted correctly, but didn\u2019t require the priests to withdraw their public dissent.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, dissent continued to spread \u2014 dissent not only from the teaching on birth control but, as had been predicted, from a lot else besides.<\/p>\n

As a writer in Commonweal put it: \u201cWe see at work in the birth-control issue the celibacy debate, the germinal drive for divorce and remarriage, the frequency of intercommunion, and a number of more doctrines such as purgatory, hell, transubstantiation, Mary as coredemptrix, and so on.\u201d<\/p>\n

As noted, the teaching of \u201cHumanae Vitae\u201d has been endorsed by popes since Pope Paul, including Pope Francis. And Pope Francis will canonize Pope Paul in mid-October.<\/p>\n

Some people nevertheless worry that Pope Francis<\/span> might take the same approach to contraception that he took to communion for divorced and remarried Catholics in his document on marriage, \u201cAmoris Laetitia\u201d (\u201cThe Joy of Love\u201d). That could mean declaring support for the <\/span>teaching, while offering a \u201cpastoral\u201d solution for those who can\u2019t \u2014 or <\/span>anyway won\u2019t \u2014 live by it.<\/span><\/p>\n

A member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Father Maurizio Chiodi, suggested something like that in a public lecture last December. He remains a member of the pontifical council.<\/p>\n

But however that may be, judging by the poll numbers Catholic consciences are already in disarray on birth control. Admirers of \u201cHumanae Vitae\u201d hope nothing happens during its 50th anniversary year to make that situation worse \u2014 just as they hope the anniversary moves at least some of their dissenting coreligionists to take another look at its teaching.\u00a0\u00a0 (source<\/span><\/a>)<\/p>\n

Those who want to interact with this blog are invited to “Leave a Reply” below.\u00a0 A solid way to begin doing this is to offer “readback lines.”\u00a0 To do this, quickly glace back over the entire blog and pick out the one or two lines that have made a deep impression upon you.\u00a0 Copy them [CTRL-C] and then paste them\u00a0[CTRL-V] into an empty comment box below.\u00a0 If you wish, signal the emotion that you feel when reading your readback lines.\u00a0 The primary emotions are anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, surprise.\u00a0\u00a0 No need to further explain yourself.\u00a0 It is enough to identify the text important to you and to name the emotion(s) that it evokes.\u00a0 All of this normally takes less than a few minutes.<\/p>\n

I and others will “thank you” for your contribution.\u00a0 If you are tempted to say more, I urge you to hold back.\u00a0 Your sense of safety and the safety of others is best protected by not getting overly wordy in the beginning.\u00a0<\/a> This will come after a few days or weeks.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Leave a Reply~~~~~~~~<\/p>\n<\/div>\n ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Fifty years ago [1968], Pope Paul VI issued an encyclical that shook the Catholic Church to its core by declaring that every use of artificial contraceptives is immoral. The document, “Humanae Vitae” (“Of Human Life”), was a shocker because many Catholics had hoped the pope, with the widening availability of the pill after its appearance … <\/p>\n

Continue reading ““Humanae Vitae”–story of dissent and oppression within the Church”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[6,5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/387"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=387"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/387\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":433,"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/387\/revisions\/433"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=387"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=387"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/Jesus4lesbians.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=387"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}