{"id":5044,"date":"2006-10-24T11:52:56","date_gmt":"2006-10-24T11:52:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/viamedia\/2006\/10\/swallows-returning.html"},"modified":"2006-10-24T11:52:56","modified_gmt":"2006-10-24T11:52:56","slug":"swallows-returning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/2006\/10\/swallows-returning.html","title":{"rendered":"Swallows, returning"},"content":{"rendered":"

The October issue of First Things<\/em> contains a very long piece by Jody Bottum: \u201cWhen the Swallows Come Back to Capistrano: Catholic Culture in America.\u201d <\/p>\n

Here’s the piece.<\/a><\/p>\n

I spent a couple of weeks mulling this piece, trying to figure out what was off about it. There\u2019s much good in it – the central controlling metaphor is perfect and expertly deployed, especially as Bottum returns to it in the examples he pulls out in the last quarter of his piece – the weirdness in the Diocese of Orange County. He goes into some depth trying to explain why things went off in the American church in the 60\u2019s and 70\u2019s, laying the blame mostly in the US bishops\u2019 alliance with the Left – with leftist issues and a sort of shifting of the Church\u2019s energy to leftist modes of thinking and priorities, ecclesial, political and spiritual. <\/p>\n

So what\u2019s missing? <\/p>\n

(note before you move on – what is lacking in the following post is my end of the conversation about the solutions – getting the swallows back. This about wore me out, so…tomorrow.)<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I think it\u2019s this: In reading Bottum\u2019s piece most average Catholics would not know what the heck he was talking about. The events and statements that he describes certainly had an impact on the life of the Church, but they didn\u2019t hit Catholics where they lived, for the most part. <\/p>\n

The question is Catholic culture. As Bottum notes, for centuries, Catholic faith has been sustained by and expressed in the richness of Catholic culture. This has been one of my interests for a long time – if we\u2019re talking about passing the faith on to children, good textbooks and even good Catholic schools are just the tiniest piece in the puzzle. The faith was passed on for centuries – centuries during which most Catholics didn\u2019t go to Catholic schools, heck – didn\u2019t even read. <\/em>It was passed on because of what happened in communities – the structures and traditions that grew over time, that embodied the faith. So that new generations didn\u2019t know about a saint because they read a story about her – they knew about her because the community celebrated her feast, her image was fashioned into the church buildings, little girls were named after her, pilgrimages were made to her shrine, the priest told the story of her life, and novenas were prayed to her. <\/p>\n

So much of this – so very much of this is sociological. I heard a bit of Jody\u2019s appearance on the Al Kresta show last Friday, and he made the point that in the 50\u2019s, sociologists were wondering what was going to happen to Catholicism in the United States when the urban ethnic enclaves dissolved, as they were bound to do. Now we know.<\/p>\n

The question that has bugged me for ages is different from that I hear asked by others. Others try to rebuild, to recreate that old sense of Catholic culture – which is admirable, but is it possible? No, what I wonder about is how do we reconstruct Catholic life in the catacombs? By that I don\u2019t mean the extremes of persecution, but as Christians living in a culture that is really inimical to the Gospel, at every point, to the celebration of materialism, consumerism, economic success, personal appearance, to the rank hostility to life and the commoditization of sex. Christianity was born and flourished in the Roman Empire, in conditions hostile to it. There was no \u201cCatholic culture\u201d as we associate it with Christendom on. I\u2019m thinking it is more useful and to the point to imagine myself, as a Christian, living in the time of Domitian, than thinking that the answer is to try to recreated 13th<\/sup> century Italy. As I\u2019ve written before, as the witness of Ireland and Quebec show so painfully – is there a shadow to \u201cCatholic culture?\u201d As there is a shadow to everything?<\/p>\n

Well, moving back to the article.<\/p>\n

There is, Bottum, maintains, a widespread contempt for bishops among American Catholics, and the bishops and their actions are the focus of much of the article. Frankly, I\u2019m not sure if that is a complete anomaly in American, or even more general Catholic history. The current deep, pervasive distrust – sure. But anti-clericalism as well as an attitude to episcopal authority that juggled a little fear, a bit of grudging respect and an implied adversarial relationship are attitudes that have a healthy history in Catholics\u2019 attitudes to their bishops, even if it doesn\u2019t tell the whole story.<\/p>\n

The bishops are certainly the focus of the discontent of many Catholics today, and Bottum rightly lays it out, but I think what is missing, as I said at the beginning, is that much of the story he tells is not directly relevant to the lives of ordinary Catholics. They have certainly been impacted, in ways they don\u2019t know, by, say, the original Call to Action conference. But the distrust of the bishops is more than that. It\u2019s a skepticism towards church authority, period.<\/p>\n

Not exactly a news flash, I know. But present condition of American Catholicism – there are so many of us, yet we seem to matter so little, relative to our numbers, and we seem to be so relaxed about this faith business – comes from a lot of different places. It\u2019s the fruit of the last half-century, of course – political, social and intellectual forces have weighed heavily into the average Catholic\u2019s sense of what religion is: it is a spiritual path to inner peace and, as a helpful byproduct, greater social functionality, a path that is chosen because it feels right, the people are welcoming or because the institution offering this particular path has good kids\u2019 programs. Religious leaders are relevant only to the extent that they confirm my own choices. God exists, but He is so big that really, you can say just about anything about Him, and you\u2019ll probably be right. So go ahead, say anything. I won\u2019t judge you, as long as you don\u2019t judge me.<\/p>\n

Tell me you don\u2019t think that\u2019s how 80% of the people in the pews think about religion – any <\/em>pews, including Catholic ones.<\/p>\n

Obviously the roots of this go deep, and stretch back much longer than 1962-65. But really\u2026the Church was sort of holding the line for much of that period, even with all the faults and weaknesses of the pre-Vatican II Church.<\/p>\n

What happened?<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve discussed this frequently before, pointing out the mystery that things probably couldn\u2019t have been so perfectly great if, in a matter of 5 years, we went from Tridentine liturgies to consecrating bread in baskets with Blowin\u2019 in the Wind<\/em> wafting around our heads. Things don\u2019t happen that fast without some foundation, ironically, for the collapse. (I would suggest, though, if you read some honest accounts of most <\/em>of the priests, and particularly diocesan priests, and many of the women religious in those decades preceding Vatican II, it will become clearer. The rules were many, with little rationales offered or built into the system. In that context, it is a little easier to see how poorly understood structures could be quickly tossed aside. Even Frank Sheed, in The Church and I <\/em>fretted over the abysmal level of theological and spiritual knowledge among American religious women, for example. )<\/p>\n

But Call to Action and other political moves aside, here\u2019s what did it. Here\u2019s the moment that expresses the point of departure, and a piece of the puzzle of what laid the groundwork for the present. A seemingly small thing, a minor point of Catholic identity: dispensing with the obligatory abstinence from meat on Fridays. I am actually rather surprised that Bottum doesn\u2019t even mention this.<\/p>\n

Does it seem too trivial? It\u2019s not, as Eamon Duffy quite eloquently writes in his book Faith of the Fathers. <\/em>You can say all you want that no, it\u2019s not that Friday penitential practices were eliminated – we\u2019re still obligated to perform some act of penance on Fridays, and it just is left up to us to determine what that should be, and oh, no people weren\u2019t told they were going to Hell if they ate meat on Friday, that\u2019s just a myth, and it really wasn\u2019t such a big deal.<\/p>\n

Duffy\u2019s words on abstinence are worth repeating:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In abandoning real and regular fasting and abstinence as a corporate and normative expression of our faith — by making it optional — the Church forfeited one of its most eloquent prophetic signs. There is a world of difference between a private devotional gesture the action of the specially pious, and the prophetic witness of the whole community, the matter-of-fact witness, repeated week by week, that to be Christian is to stand among the needy. …<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/p>\n

It\u2019s important because this single branch of the Catholic culture tree, the one that was so visible, shared and such an identifier – was gone, for the most part. The intent was to help Catholics develop a more mature faith, one that was not dependent on an institution laying down rules, because that is not what the individual\u2019s call to a personal relationship with Christ should be based on. Perhaps there is truth to that. It is certainly true that the Western church\u2019s attitude to fasting and abstinence has not been cast in stone, has developed over the years in an ever-laxer direction, in stark contrast to the East. Perhaps this was just the latest step\u2026but to what? <\/p>\n

If this was up for grabs…what next? The Church’s teaching on contraception? <\/p>\n

Oops.<\/p>\n

Bottum addresses this:<\/p>\n

\n
\n

And yet, I\u2019m not sure that the problem was really the laity\u2019s disagreement. It may have been instead the laity\u2019s great shrug\u2014the widespread feeling among normal, everyday Catholics in the 1970s that they couldn\u2019t figure out, and perhaps shouldn\u2019t much care, where the Church stood from one day to another. The feeling had cause. In the years after Vatican II finished in 1965, nearly everything seemed up for grabs, and nearly everyone was uncertain what would end up licit and what would end up illicit in Catholic teaching.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

In the early 1970s, it was not unknown that reputable Catholic theologians and even bishops would, in ecumenical settings, concelebrate the Eucharist with liberal Protestant clergy. Such events were unusual, of course, but those participating thought they were only a step or two ahead of where the Church was going. If you cannot imagine this happening today, that\u2019s partly because the old mainline Protestant churches<\/em> matter so much less than they used to. Besides, their sharp anti-Catholic turn in recent years\u2014much of it occasioned by the battles over abortion\u2014has made this kind of unfocused ecumenical gestures pointless. Mostly, however, you can\u2019t imagine bishops or theologians of stature concelebrating the Eucharist with non-Catholics because the doctrine of communio, with all it entails for Christian unity and division, has grown firm again.<\/em><\/p>\n

Back then, however, nearly every element of Catholic doctrine appeared as<\/em> tentative and changeable as figures in wet clay. Indeed, insofar as anyone could tell at the time, the emerging shape seemed to be the separation of Catholicism even from Catholic communion. Why not consecrate the elements with almost anyone who wants to join in?<\/em><\/p>\n

These were the days, you remember, when popular writers such as Father Andrew Greeley would speak of \u201ccultural Catholics,\u201d vaguely identifiable by their social sense rather than by their actually assenting to Church doctrine or going to Mass. Sociology in the 1950s had predicted the assimilation of American Catholics as they crossed the crabgrass frontier to suburbia, or melted down their ethnic heritage in intermarriage, or rose to middle-class respectability. For the next generation of writers, Catholicism itself was on the chopping block. Left or right, everybody piled on, and the discount-book tables were littered with copies of The Decomposition of Catholicism and Runaway Church and Can Catholic Schools Survive? and The Devastated Vineyard and Bare Ruined Choirs and Has the Catholic Church Gone Mad?<\/em> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

Well-worn material, I know. But the warp and woof of ordinary Catholic life has collapsed, not just because of sociological shifts and intellectual currents, but because the institutional church, personified first by bishops, misunderstood John XXIII\u2019s hopes. He wanted the Council to \u201copen the windows\u201d to the \u201cworld,\u201d not to let the Church be permeated by that world, but so that the Church might better understand the world, and share Christ with it all the more powerfully. But that\u2019s not what happened, so instead what we got was, with the full consent of the bishops – who do the hiring and approve the policies – a Catholic world in which Catholic pedagogy decided it had to mimic secular pedagogy, Catholic schools of all levels made accreditation and approbation by secular and state bodies their first priorities, in which liturgical life was reshaped by the conviction that what people really wanted was to be put at the center of the spiritual quest, because that\u2019s how the world defines spirituality, in which at every level, in almost every diocese, the people in charge were full of excitement because it was in their hands to breathe a New Spirit into the Church.<\/p>\n

Which means, essentially, they got to make stuff up.<\/p>\n

(A reader writes – shall we call it “Pandora’s Window?”)<\/p>\n

There are many reasons people don\u2019t trust bishops or the institutional church. Sexual abuse and financial outrages are a huge part of it. But there are other factors: sending your children and your money to Catholic schools for 12 or 16 years only to see them either not know a thing about Catholicism or lose their faith. (although I always listen to those stories with skepticism. There\u2019s usually more to the story that goes beyond the schools). People don\u2019t understand why all sorts of wackiness goes on in their parishes and Catholic institutions. They hear what\u2019s coming from Rome, see it ignored, undermined and treated with contempt at the local level. <\/p>\n

There is this huge disconnect between the church on the ground in the US and the past 2000 years or so. This Catholic culture of which Bottom speaks embodied, in flawed and limited ways, to be sure, but it did embody and express so much of that Catholic history, spirituality and life, in symbol, gesture and word. The idea was this: the Church existed to be Jesus in the world and to do this by faithfully preserving the Tradition and passing it on, a Tradition that was enriched and expressed in various traditions, some of which had to be periodically and regularly cleared out and evaluated (don\u2019t delude yourself into thinking that this never happened before 1962), thought through and refashioned (again, if this were not the case, there would have been no theologians since St. Paul, right?) <\/p>\n

. But the basic assumption remained: Deposit of Faith – faithfully preserved – handed on.<\/p>\n

So the \u201cspirit\u201d that breathed through in those post-Conciliar years was a spirit of judging everything by contemporary values and subjective experience, and it\u2019s a spirit that was aggressively applied to everything, via the work of diocesan chanceries and Catholic educational institutions and <\/em>religious orders. It sounds crass of me to call it The Spirit of Making Stuff Up, but honestly, if you go back and read, say journals related to parish ministry, catechesis and liturgy, that\u2019s what strikes you the most. It\u2019s a frantic frenzy of applying anything<\/em> to liturgy, catechesis and the preaching of the Gospel except anything <\/u>that came from the Roman Catholic tradition prior to 1962. Except de Chardin, of course.<\/em><\/p>\n

It\u2019s still here, although a different spirit is, as Bottom notes, a borning. But if you look at, say, the programs for professional lay ministry groups – catechetical, pastoral and liturgical – the disassociation is just weird. It is all about applying the latest trends to Catholic activities, constantly remaking it, constantly trying to find the new thing that will be just the thing.<\/p>\n

It is, if you think about it, an attempt to rebuild Catholic culture, indeed. Except the branches now are reiki, personality tests, Native American spirituality, Buddhist concepts, evangelical church-building techniques, self-help language, and what middle-aged people think is youth culture, although usually, tragically, lamely – it\u2019s not. <\/p>\n

Wow. Does this have anything to do with Bottum\u2019s piece? I\u2019m not sure, and I\u2019ve not even dealt with the signs of life he sees – I will try to get to that tomorrow.<\/p>\n

Here is the point, and it relates to the Dreher Drama of last week, although I hesitate to even bring that up, lest this thread get derailed on that. But they\u2019re related.<\/p>\n

Agree or disagree, Rod Dreher\u2019s first point of separation from the Catholic Church came as he noted the apparent disconnect between what the Catholic Church is and the way that we experience the Catholic Church in the United States. It was not just the sinfulness of its members and leaders, which took its toll, certainly, but are, as Rod knows, a part of every church.<\/p>\n

No, it was Rod\u2019s experience of knowing what he knew about the Catholic Church – what it teaches, has taught, the richness of its spirituality and tradition and cultural patrimony – and not finding that richness anywhere<\/u>in the churches and ordinary Catholic life he was a part of. Of being in parish after parish in which Church teachings were ignored, never mentioned, or directly contradicted from the pulpit, in classrooms and other settings. Of seeing institutional concerns – about \u201cbeing involved in the parish\u201d or \u201cfeeling welcomed in the parish\u201d or \u201cgiving money to the parish\u201d or \u201cpreserving the reputation of the diocese and the bishop\u201d overwhelming, drowning out any focus on Christ. Of living and trying to pass on the faith to children in local institutions that didn\u2019t reflect that broader, deeper faith <\/em>and were happily driving down the faith-sharing road, passing out handouts with newly composed prayers thanking God for me which would be prayed with a top-40 song in the background right before we cover our unit on the rainforest. <\/em> <\/p>\n

I\u2019ve spent my time discussing and arguing with Rod about where he ultimately took this experience, so I really, as I said, don\u2019t want to make that the focus of this discussion. I’m not saying that’s a normative experience, I’m saying that’s his account of his experience. But I think his experience – expressed through my own prism here – puts Bottum\u2019s article into the light it needs to be discussed. <\/p>\n

I suppose what I’m saying is that Bottum’s piece certainly hits some great points, but it doesn’t go far enough into why and how it all happened: it happened because of the way priests were taught in seminaries, the way lay ministers were taught in their programs, the way catechetical offices and offices of worship were staffed, the way that liturgists were taught and passed on their wisdom, etc…<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve spent 40 years making stuff up. The bishops and other leaders paid lots of people to make stuff up, thinking that all they were doing was making the faith more accessible to modern people. And judging from the numbers – the packed churches, the bustling Catholic schools – maybe the argument could be made that it worked.<\/p>\n

Or did it?<\/p>\n

As you can see, this is lame. And I knew it would be, which is why it\u2019s taken me 2 weeks to get myself to sit down and write it. But I\u2019m sure your comments will clarify my own head, as well. I have a bit more to say – but I\u2019ll save it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The October issue of First Things contains a very long piece by Jody Bottum: \u201cWhen the Swallows Come Back to Capistrano: Catholic Culture in America.\u201d Here’s the piece. I spent a couple of weeks mulling this piece, trying to figure out what was off about it. There\u2019s much good in it – the central controlling…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":180,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5044","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"\nSwallows, returning - Via Media<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/2006\/10\/swallows-returning.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Swallows, returning - Via Media\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The October issue of First Things contains a very long piece by Jody Bottum: \u201cWhen the Swallows Come Back to Capistrano: Catholic Culture in America.\u201d Here’s the piece. I spent a couple of weeks mulling this piece, trying to figure out what was off about it. There\u2019s much good in it – the central controlling…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/2006\/10\/swallows-returning.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Via Media\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-10-24T11:52:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"awelborn\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Swallows, returning - Via Media","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/2006\/10\/swallows-returning.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Swallows, returning - Via Media","og_description":"The October issue of First Things contains a very long piece by Jody Bottum: \u201cWhen the Swallows Come Back to Capistrano: Catholic Culture in America.\u201d Here’s the piece. I spent a couple of weeks mulling this piece, trying to figure out what was off about it. There\u2019s much good in it – the central controlling…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/2006\/10\/swallows-returning.html","og_site_name":"Via Media","article_published_time":"2006-10-24T11:52:56+00:00","author":"awelborn","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/2006\/10\/swallows-returning.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/2006\/10\/swallows-returning.html","name":"Swallows, returning - Via Media","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-10-24T11:52:56+00:00","dateModified":"2006-10-24T11:52:56+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/#\/schema\/person\/aea2dcda1635c9c2d6030d9c7595725a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/2006\/10\/swallows-returning.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/2006\/10\/swallows-returning.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/2006\/10\/swallows-returning.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Swallows, returning"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/","name":"Via Media","description":"Amy Welborn","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/#\/schema\/person\/aea2dcda1635c9c2d6030d9c7595725a","name":"awelborn","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/9f2\/9f2100183464289fedc5b8a621c15110x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/9f2\/9f2100183464289fedc5b8a621c15110x96.jpg","caption":"awelborn"},"description":"Amy Welborn was born in 1960, the only child of a now-retired professor of political science, a teacher-librarian-artist mother,deceased since 2001, was a teacher, librarian and artist. The Catholicism comes from her side. Amy grew up in a number of places - Indiana - Washington, DC - Lubbock Texas - Arlington, Virginia - DeKalb, Illinois - Lawrence, Kansas - and Knoxville, Tennessee, where the family settled in 1973. She attended Knoxville Catholic High School, then the University of Tennessee where she majored in history. She received an MA in Church History from Vanderbilt University, where she wrote a thesis on the changing role of women in 19th century American Protestantism, and the ways Scripture was used to justify those changes. She worked as as a teacher in Catholic high schools and a Parish Director of Religious Education and started writing for the diocesan press - the Florida Catholic - in 1988. Amy has written columns for Our Sunday Visitor and Catholic News Service at times over the past twenty years. Her articles have been published in venues ranging from Our Sunday Visitor to the New York Times to Commonweal. She has written 17 books. 18, if you included the as yet tragically unpublished novel. Amy has five children, ranging in age from 26 to 4 and was married to Michael Dubruiel, who died unexpectedly in February 2009. She lives in Birmingham, Alabama.","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/author\/awelborn"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5044","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/180"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5044"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5044\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5044"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5044"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5044"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}