{"id":6678,"date":"2025-06-16T17:59:53","date_gmt":"2025-06-16T17:59:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/iris3.net\/the-historical-context-of-the-encyclical-evangelium-vitae\/"},"modified":"2025-06-25T20:05:31","modified_gmt":"2025-06-25T20:05:31","slug":"the-historical-context-of-the-encyclical-evangelium-vitae","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/iris3.net\/en\/the-historical-context-of-the-encyclical-evangelium-vitae\/","title":{"rendered":"The Historical Context of the Encyclical Evangelium vitae"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Dr. Jos\u00e9 Guillermo Guti\u00e9rrez Fern\u00e1ndez<\/em><\/p>\n\n

I warmly greet His Eminence Cardinal Gerhard M\u00fcller, who preceded me in the presentation, and the other colleagues who will speak this afternoon. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I sincerely thank father Stefano Tardani and the friends of the \u201cFamiglia piccola Chiesa\u201d Association, who have kindly invited me to come to Rome to participate in this symposium and to learn about their interesting IRIS-3 project.<\/p>\n\n

This year we are celebrating 30 years since the encyclical of the Holy Pope John Paul II, Evangelium vitae. Throughout this time, much reflection has taken place on its content, and it might seem that there is nothing more to say. However, each time we return to this prophetic text, new aspects for reflection emerge. This is the case, for example, with the topic that brings us together today: The dignity of the human person and the spiritual soul. <\/p>\n\n

It is undeniable that in the history of humanity, never before has so much importance been given to the protection of human life. In fact, in modern, democratic, and liberal societies \u2014 where the majority of people live \u2014 this protection of life has been carried out in a broad and effective way. Despite wars and the many forms of crime and violence that continue to afflict large sectors of humanity \u2014 and which in recent years have increased \u2014 individuals have the reassurance that their physical integrity, in principle, will be guaranteed by the State. Practically all modern state constitutions affirm the principle of the right to life. However, paradoxically, never before has the life of innocent human beings been so threatened as it is today. Our contemporary civilization lives in a cultural situation of enormous contradiction. On the one hand, it ensures broad protection of life and the security of all citizens, but at the same time, it has produced structures and new forms that attack life and the dignity of persons, claiming to be legitimate from the legal point of view. <\/p>\n\n

It is true that throughout history, in various forms and circumstances, human life has always been threatened \u2014 let us think, for example, of wars, homicides, abortion, torture, and the exploitation of labor power that harms life. [1]<\/a>. Nevertheless, while in the past these attacks, with virtually no fundamental objection, were given a negative moral judgment and classified as crimes, today they are increasingly being tolerated and even accepted. The new perspectives opened by scientific and technological progress have given rise to new attacks on life, with new nuances and unprecedented outlooks, so that some of these assaults occur in the field of biomedicine \u2014 as in the now well-known cases of voluntary abortion, destructive experimentation on embryos, and euthanasia. These are new forms of threat to the dignity of the human being, which outline and consolidate a new cultural situation. In the eyes of many people, they are acceptable and even unquestionable, given the moral authority of the medical profession and the scientific context in which they take place. Moreover, under the influence of major ideological campaigns, they are perceived as rights rooted in individual freedom. And on this basis, in many cases, it is demanded that they be legally recognized, and that they be carried out with the financial support of the State through free assistance from the healthcare system and medical personnel.[2]<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n

The encyclical Evangelium vitae<\/em> rEvangelium vitae expresses concern over the obscuring of the value of life as one of the defining features of this new cultural situation, [3]<\/a>, fto the point of stating that we are in the midst of a dramatic struggle between the \u201cculture of life\u201d and the \u201cculture of death.\u201d [4]<\/a> It accuses contemporary society of fueling a war of the strong against the weak[5]<\/a>. Quella che il recentemente scomparso Papa Francesco ha definito una \u201ccultura dell’usa e getta\u201d. At the same time, the encyclical acknowledges several positive signs that point to the growing protection of the right to life, so widely proclaimed in contemporary societies. Among these are greater attention to quality of life and ecological issues, efforts to bring medical care to the poorest regions, [6]<\/a> and a growing sensitivity against war and the death penalty. Yet, as has been noted, despite these commendable efforts to protect life, there remain enormous and radical contradictions within the very heart of society. <\/p>\n\n

Martin Rhonheimer,[7]<\/a> for example, states that although most people, in principle, would want to exclude practices such as abortion and euthanasia from their own personal behavior, at the same time, a large number of them are willing to tolerate others engaging in these practices freely if they consider them justified. For this reason, they reject the idea of making them legally punishable, on the assumption that doing otherwise would imply intolerance and unjust discrimination. But this concept of tolerance is no longer simply the enduring of a practice that, although considered detestable, is not penalized in order to safeguard higher values such as peace. Rather, it is the acceptance that certain behaviors \u2014 while not seen as appropriate for oneself \u2014 are nonetheless recognized as legitimate alternatives for others. [8]<\/a> This conception inevitably impacts how people think, feel, legislate, and perceive values. It entails a profound transformation at the cultural, structural, and psychosocial levels. <\/p>\n\n

Finnis notes that the term \u201cculture of death\u201d should not be understood as claiming that modern culture as such, or Western culture as such, or the secular world as a whole, constitutes a culture of death. Rather, the term indicates that in our contemporary world, there is a strongly present and clearly identifiable set of interrelated practices, agreements, laws, institutions, modes of acting, thinking, and communicating, of interpreting, and learned patterns of wanting and desiring \u2014 which taken together can rightly be called a \u201cculture of death.\u201d \u201cThe word \u2018culture\u2019 implies something more or less enduring. The phrase \u2018culture of death\u2019 indicates a disposition \u2014 more or less stable and shared \u2014 to make and carry out choices in a certain direction; a pattern of intent, more or less open and consistent, public and unashamed. What is distinctive about this set of attitudes and practices is that those who share them are willing to attempt [9]<\/a> – death. <\/p>\n\n

In summary, the \u201cculture of death\u201d consists of a set of attitudes and behaviors, as well as institutions and laws, that fail to respect the value of human life. It views the deliberate death of certain classes of people as something legitimate in order to solve particular problems or alleviate suffering \u2014 sometimes grave and complex [10]<\/a>. This is not merely a matter of individual selfishness but of a social consciousness that, lacking belief in the inviolable value of human life, claims ownership over it. Even though the fundamental equality of human beings may be formally upheld, in practice, unjust discriminations are established[11]<\/a>. Some are loved, while others are deemed unworthy of life or believed to be better off not living.To justify this, the concept of \u201cquality of life\u201d is invoked [12]<\/a>. \u2014 often using reductionist and arbitrary criteria to measure it, such as economic efficiency, consumerism, physical beauty, and the ability to enjoy physical life \u2014 while entirely ignoring or neglecting the spiritual, relational, and religious dimensions of existence.[13]<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n

2. The Causes of the Current Cultural Situation.<\/em><\/p>\n\n

John Paul II states in the Encyclical that attacks on life sometimes arise from personal situations of deep suffering and moral confusion, which can even lessen subjective guilt. However, the phenomenon is much broader, and one can precisely speak of a true structure of sin, characterized by the imposition of an anti-solidarity culture, actively promoted by powerful cultural, economic, and political currents that advocate an efficiency-driven conception of society [14]<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

According to the Pope, the causes of this cultural situation lie in an idea of freedom that he does not hesitate to describe as \u201cperverse,\u201d as it leads to a striking contradiction [15]<\/a>. This is precisely the contradiction we have been referring to: on the one hand, solemnly proclaiming the inviolable rights of the person \u2014 among them the right to life \u2014 and multiplying initiatives without distinction of any kind, while on the other hand threatening civil coexistence by effectively denying this value and this fundamental equality, through the rejection of those most in need, the elderly, the weakest, and the unborn. In doing so, our societies cease to be communities of coexistence and become societies of the excluded, putting at risk the culture of human rights [16]<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n

Although it is the State\u2019s duty to protect human life in its physical integrity, this task is today de facto challenged in two areas: at the beginning and at the end of life. Caffarra [17] <\/a>shows how the justification of abortion and euthanasia is the result of a project that is reaching its conclusion \u2014 one that defines the human person solely as a subject whose original and complete definition is the freedom of choice. Precisely at these two moments \u2014 at the beginning and at the end of life \u2014 the person\u2019s freedom is challenged to carry out its own decisive act. When a person is confronted with the beginning of a new human life, they must make a decision regarding the ultimate reasons for existence. In fact, the conception of a new human being places man before the need to answer the question about the origin of that person. If the new human being is merely the causal result of a set of biological, natural, and impersonal events, then that being is reduced to just a \u201cmoment\u201d in a process, without it being possible to attribute it to an eternal and personal self. Thus, no special dignity accompanies that being. The greatest gift that can be granted to man \u2014 that of depending on Someone eternal and personal \u2014 is lost, and man is reduced to dependence on a thing. From this perspective, the justification of abortion as a right \u2014 that is, as a prerogative founded on the order of justice \u2014 is the radical affirmation of a project of liberation that seeks to align itself with the eradication of the person from being. That is, it is the decision to consign man exclusively to himself. The same happens at the end of life, and perhaps even more radically. Faced with the end of life, one must choose between self-justification or justification by another of what is finite. Eradicating the person from the Mystery that dwells within them means, above all, justifying suicide \u2014 and even ennobling it as a choice for life, for quality of life. Man is to judge when his life is worthy or unworthy of being lived. <\/p>\n\n

The root of all this lies in three events that have shaped it. First, the denial of the orientation of the intellect toward truth. If it is denied that conscience is originally the awareness of being, and being is reduced to conscience, then truth is wounded at its root and is replaced by consensus. Secondly, and as a consequence of the above, there arises an experience of freedom that is founded on nothing other than itself. It is self-referential and simply constitutes human existence. Thirdly, we find the ultimate consequence of this process: the elevation of utility or pleasure as the only criterion of truth. There was only one way to justify taking control over the beginning and end of life \u2014 to affirm that man is the absolute master of himself. In other words, that freedom is \u201cindifferent\u201d and must decide autonomously. This explains why abortion is justified as \u201cself-determination\u201d and euthanasia as the \u201cchoice whether to live or not.\u201d And in this way, the final result is pure permissive sensualism. The isolation from all objectivity, from all reality that exists independently of us \u2014 this distancing \u2014 has left contemporary man in a playful atmosphere in which the only criterion of objectivity is the individual\u2019s own mood. <\/p>\n\n

This interesting analysis aligns with what the Encyclical states. John Paul II identifies the root of this paradoxical contradiction in an erroneous concept of freedom, which he describes as the absolute exaltation of the individual, which does not lead to solidarity, full acceptance, or service to others. Such a concept of freedom as pure self-determination depends, the Pope says, both on a distortion of subjectivity \u2014 one that recognizes as the bearer of rights only those who demonstrate full or at least incipient autonomy \u2014 and on the theory that identifies personal dignity with the capacity for verbal and explicit communication. The Encyclical emphasizes that from these premises, it is impossible to uphold the inalienability of the human subject, which is the foundation of human rights. Nor is there room in the world for those categories of human beings who are structurally weak and dependent, and who can communicate only in the silence of a mutual symbiosis of affection \u2014 as is the case with both the unborn and the dying \u2014 leaving them at the mercy of others, which means that force becomes the criterion for choice and for action. <\/p>\n\n

3. Materialism and the Denial of the Spiritual Soul as the Ultimate Root of This Process<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n

From what we have said, it seems evident that the reduction of the human person to the solely material dimension \u2014 to biology and physiology, to the neural connections that make consciousness and autonomy possible \u2014 is the root of the inability to uphold the inalienability of human life. Indeed, the Christian conception of man sees the intangible dignity of the human being as founded on his being in the image of God, in such a way that man in his entirety \u2014 of immortal spiritual soul and matter \u2014 has as his ultimate end personal communion with God in a life beyond death, as Cardinal M\u00fcller highlighted in his presentation. But if, as we have said, the current cultural context affirms the emancipation and absolute freedom of the person and confines human life only within the horizon of temporality and finitude, whose end is therefore total annihilation, then there is no room to consider human dignity as absolute. That which is destined for nothingness cannot have absolute dignity, nor can unconditional respect be required for it. <\/p>\n\n

Thus, we encounter an objection that deserves to be taken seriously. It is this: does the Church, through its moral teaching, not place limits on scientific research \u2014 limits that mean obstacles, perhaps insurmountable ones, or at least delays in achieving possible useful results for human health, toward which that research is directed? The objection is strong: the Church, in seeking to save humanity, in fact prevents the good of humanity itself. The same objection arises in relation to suffering: the moral teaching of the Church goes against all legitimate effort to avoid, as far as possible, unbearable or extraordinarily burdensome suffering. One could think of prenatal diagnosis aimed at preventing the birth of human beings with severe limitations, which would justify the need for abortion. <\/p>\n\n

This objection calls for a response, which I will now only outline in its fundamental features. As can be seen, it raises a question that goes beyond the field of biomedicine: is it morally permissible for man to do everything that he can from a techno-scientific point of view? Or at least: is it permissible to do everything that he can physically do when it concerns actions that will produce a useful result for human life? This question leads to another, which is the underlying question needed to establish valid criteria: what is man? And to answer adequately about the meaning of human life, it is also necessary to ask about its ultimate end. As we can see, the problem leads us to the traditional question from the Catechism: for what end are we on this earth? <\/p>\n\n

Much has been said in recent years about the urgent need to develop a new anthropological synthesis. I believe that the project you have undertaken goes in this direction and will constitute a valuable contribution. It is not a matter of setting aside our rich tradition, for as I have just demonstrated, the fundamental questions are always ultimately the same, albeit in new cultural contexts. But it is about engaging a new creativity of faith, having as perspective the hermeneutics of continuity \u2014 that is, the coherence of faith \u2014 which for us always constitutes the princeps analogatum. <\/p>\n\n

Returning to the argument I have been making: the Holy Pope was well aware that without a valid answer to the questions we have raised, his argument in defense of life as an absolute value would be left without a foundation. His response \u2014 one of both faith and reason \u2014 is as follows: earthly life has its own order and purpose, and therefore a meaning in itself. But this meaning is not complete; it is open to the subsequent phase, in which the exercise of freedom during earthly life will be fulfilled in a definitive outcome: salvation or eternal condemnation, as expressed in the language of Christian faith. Therefore, the life that the encyclical describes as a \u201cfundamental\u201d and \u201cprimary\u201d good [18]<\/a>, is at the same time, according to the same encyclical, relative and a \u201cpenultimate\u201d reality, so that bodily life and its earthly dimension are not an absolute.[19]<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n

In this acknowledgment of man\u2019s destiny, and therefore of his ultimate meaning, is grounded the sacredness of life in its earthly phase. Christian revelation has provided an important light capable of illuminating the binding character and the fundamental content of the moral imperative that every man perceives in his conscience. It is only in this light that one can understand the unconditional respect for life from conception until natural death, even when it is marked by suffering. But it is precisely here, at this foundation, where many people of our time find difficulty in accepting the Christian message without compromise. It is true that this is a message that human beings can understand rationally and that resonates within them; it is not a prerogative of Christians alone [20]<\/a>. But the Pope himself points out that this message of the inviolability of innocent human life, which reason is capable of grasping, can only be truly embraced through the secret influence of grace, which operates beyond the visible boundaries of the Church.[21]<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n

In conclusion, I wish to reaffirm that here I have recognized \u2014 along with many authors \u2014 the validity prima facie of the objection against the \u201cGospel of Life.\u201d But this validity in turn has limits, which it is necessary to recognize without illusions. I will express it as the Jesuit Fr. Sala, one of the first members of the Pontifical Academy for Life, used to say: \u201cAre we sure that an unlimited freedom to manipulate and reject life in order to raise the \u2018quality of life\u2019 during its earthly phase will lead humanity to a more humane life? Are we sure that the final result, based on the censorship of suffering and pain \u2014 which should always be avoided [22]<\/a>, \u2014 will ultimately give rise to a life more worthy of being lived than under the lordship of God?\u201d [23]<\/a>. History shows us how the eclipse of God always ends up leading to the eclipse of man and to greater suffering. Hence, I consider that the endeavor you intend to undertake \u2014 to study and demonstrate in the present time the existence of the spiritual soul created directly by God and in a special relationship with Him as the foundation of human dignity \u2014 is all the more urgent. <\/p>\n\n

\n\n

[1]<\/a> See EV, nn. 3 y 8. <\/p>\n\n

[2]<\/a> See EV, nn. 4,11, 18 y 68. <\/p>\n\n

[3]<\/a> In number 4 we can read: \u201cSi ipsa exstinctio tot vitarum humanarum sive nascentium sive deficientium permovet nos atque conturbat, haud quidem minuis movet id turbatque, quod conscientia ipsa, ita late propagatis condicionibus adfecta, aegrius et difficilius usque discrimen inter bonum et malum percipit iis in rebus quae principale tangunt vitae humanae bonum.<\/p>\n\n

[4]<\/a> See EV, nn. 21, 50 b, 95. <\/p>\n\n

[5]<\/a> See EV, n. 12.<\/p>\n\n

[6]<\/a> See EV, nn. 26 y 27. <\/p>\n\n

[7]<\/a> See RHONHEIMER, M., Etica della procreazione, <\/em>Pontificia Universit\u00e0 Lateranense- MURSIA, Roma 2000, pp. 5-6. <\/p>\n\n

[8]<\/a> For example, the case of those who, while considering homosexual practices as something negative, continue to support the legalization of same-sex unions, or the interventions of some politicians who consider themselves Catholics and therefore claim to reject abortion, but at the same time support its decriminalization and legalization, in the name of tolerance and respect for minorities that should prevail in a democratic political system.<\/p>\n\n

[9]<\/a> The translation of the English word \u201cintend\u201d is difficult. It is the Latin word intendere, which is also difficult to express in English; intendere is in fact a \u201ctending toward,\u201d a \u201cwanting (to do).\u201d Some authors, such as Martin Rhonheimer, translate it as \u201cin-tend\u201d; here we have sometimes translated it as \u201ctry,\u201d putting the English word between hyphens. <\/p>\n\n

[10]<\/a> See MIRANDA, G., \u201cCultura della morte\u201d…<\/em>, p. 237. <\/p>\n\n

[11]<\/a> Rhonheimer notes that the \u201cculture of death\u201d is marked by a new and very dangerous connection between protection and threat to life. On the one hand, in our modern societies, priority is given, as never before, to the protection of the person’s physical integrity, health care and support for all types of people with disabilities. But on the other hand, this same society, with its complex network of social security and public and health care institutions, develops an increasing tendency to exclude from this system those elements that hinder and burden it. This, in truth, is in accord with fairly recognizable interest structures that discriminate against certain groups of people. Otherwise, it would be inexplicable why precisely the killing of the unborn is advocated as a benefit of welfare and health care institutions, while, on the other hand, the public tendency is rather to favor practices that enable the reduction of such benefits for the disabled, preventing them from even coming into the world, thanks to the promotion of prenatal diagnosis, practiced with selective intentions. Thus, public health care develops discriminatory structures, based on the interests of those who are born, those who make money, those who are healthy, etc. The strong push for euthanasia, especially in industrialized and developed countries, can also be interpreted in this sense. It is a fact that the elderly are increasingly becoming a burden on the health care system due to medical and technical progress, increasing life expectancy, and the growing disproportion between the economy and pensions. However, for now, they are exempt from the risk of discrimination because the mechanism of democracy based on majority ratios is still in place and, in these developed nations, they increasingly constitute the majority. But this could change when young workers feel their interests threatened, outvoted by an older generation. See Rhonheimer, Etica<\/em>…, p. 12. <\/p>\n\n

[12]<\/a> For a critical view of the concept of \u201cquality of life,\u201d see: SGRECCIA, E. \u2013 CARRASCO DE PAULA, I. (a cura di), Qualit\u00e0 della Vita ed etica della ricerca<\/em>, Atti dell\u2019Undicesima Assemblea Generale della Pontificia Academia pro Vita (21-23 Febbraio 2005)<\/em>, LEV, Citt\u00e0 del Vaticano 2006.<\/p>\n\n

[13]<\/a> See EV, n. 23 b. <\/p>\n\n

[14]<\/a> See EV, n. 12 a. <\/p>\n\n

[15]<\/a> See EV, n. 18 y ss. <\/p>\n\n

[16]<\/a> In this regard, Marcello Pera said that while classical liberalism contains principles and values that, by history, tradition or culture, have been assumed as the foundation of the social community, in Western societies these shared values refer back to their Christian roots, which profess that all human beings are equal, as brothers and sons of the same God, and, consequently, each person can enjoy the same freedom while respecting the freedom of others, showing solidarity with others, thus ensuring social cohesion. This foundation has been increasingly lost, producing a contradiction, a certain intellectual and behavioral schizophrenia: on the one hand, state declarations purport to recognize \u201cfundamental rights,\u201d that is, rights that are not granted, enacted or constructed, but rather accepted as ethical facts; and, on the other hand, states themselves now consider these fundamental rights to be moldable material on which to intervene with positive legislation. (See PERA, M., Relativismo, liberalismo e crisi della famiglia. Conferenza tenuta alla XVIII Assemblea Plenaria del Pontificio Consiglio per la Famiglia, Citt\u00e0 del Vaticano, 3 aprile 2008). <\/p>\n\n

[17]<\/a> See CAFFARRA, C., \u201cVeritatis splendor\u201d-\u201cEvangelium vitae<\/em>\u201d: Il destino dell\u2019uomo, in LOPEZ TRUJILLO, A., HERRANZ, J., SGRECCIA, e., (ed.), \u201cEvangelium vitae\u201d e diritto. Acta symposii internationalis in Civitatae Vaticana celebrati 23-25 maii 1996 <\/em>, LEV, Citt\u00e0 del Vaticano 1997, pp. 33-35.<\/p>\n\n

[18]<\/a> See EV 2. <\/p>\n\n

[19]<\/a> See EV 47. <\/p>\n\n

[20]<\/a> See EV 101. <\/p>\n\n

[21]<\/a> EV 2.<\/p>\n\n

[22]<\/a> See EV 23.<\/p>\n\n

[23]<\/a> SALA, G., Continuit\u00e0 e novit\u00e0 nel Magistero della Evangelium vitae<\/em> in PONTIFICIA ACADEMIA PER LA VITA, La Causa della vita,<\/em> Citt\u00e0 del Vaticano 1996, pag. 37.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Dr. Jos\u00e9 Guillermo Guti\u00e9rrez Fern\u00e1ndez I warmly greet His Eminence Cardinal Gerhard M\u00fcller, who preceded me in the presentation, and the other colleagues who will speak this afternoon.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6623,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"off","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[78],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6678","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-conference-may-2025"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/iris3.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6678","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/iris3.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/iris3.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iris3.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iris3.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6678"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/iris3.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6678\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6679,"href":"https:\/\/iris3.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6678\/revisions\/6679"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iris3.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6623"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/iris3.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6678"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iris3.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6678"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iris3.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6678"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}