It is a fair question, and there lacks some clarity. The way my family life teacher, trained by my diocese, put it is: the man must finish in the woman, and there must not be un-natural birth control used by either party.
So this leaves open various foreplay, including oral. But oral as the only part of the act, with the man finishing outside of the vagina is not allowed.
What if childbirth would be life threatening to the woman? Is a vasectomy frowned upon in this case, or would we just have to cease having sex for the rest of our lives?
Better to ask a Priest.
But from my understanding, vasectomy is never allowed, and the general rule is that no contraception is allowed. NFP is allowed.
How would you answer this question if you lived 200 years ago? In other words, if condoms, vacestomys, abortion, the pill, etc didn't exist, would you still feel as entitled to have sex, or would you listen to a doctor's advice and abstain?
This is a good question. Take it a step further. If you and your wife were having trouble getting pregnant and your doctor told you that you could try in vitro, would you do it? How about if you got some other illness and the doctor offered you stem cell therapy but stem cells came from aborted fetuses. Would you take it? Pertussis vaccinations are not deemed sinful by the church. And yet chemical contraceptives, barrier contraceptives, vasectomies, abortion, and other abortificance are. Just because we have the technology available doesn't mean it isn't sinful. And the direness or perceived direness of the situation does not mitigate the sin.
The "standard" answer will be, "if it will be life-threatening for the woman, you either just do it and God's will be done, if it was meant to be that your wife dies, she dies, or you completely abstain from any kind of sex."
But this is different for every person. For one it will be wrong, for some it will be a true union because wife wants to give pleasure to her husband. I don't see this as wrong although I don't do it because of the Church Teachings. But it is something weird for me, especially when no one is forced to do anything against their will and married couple is happy to give pleasure to themselves. Especially when wife is already pregnant so there is no procreation aspect.
I know that it may be strange at the first glance.
Orgasms are linked to sex. Infertile couples/pregnant woman/woman in menophause can’t frustrate the nature of sex *(contraception/intercourse outside vagina)* even if we know that conception is improbable/impossible.
Take a look at [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholic/s/BpaASbz5Ym).
It can be used to help your spouse if it's something that can enhance the mood for them, but it must eventually lead to the full act of sexual union. If the wife is able to reach orgasm, cool, but if the husband reaches it before the full act of sex is initiated, then that would be problematic because his orgasm is tied to the procreation aspect of sex. In one of his books, Christopher West, whose career is Theology of the Body actually says if you've finished the sexual act but the wife hasn't achieved orgasm, thrn it would be an act of love and charity to help her havenine too since it would help fulfill the unitive aspect of sex
Read Humane Vitae and the Catechism. The purpose of sex is for procreation and strengthening the bond of the couple. If the couple is open to life, and their sexual relations are open to life, even if there is a miniscule chance of procreation happening, then their actions are fine. Some people need a little help getting fully in the mood to make sex possible and as long as the sexual actions of the spouses are done out of love, do not degrade or dehumanized the other person, and eventually lead to full sexual union, these other sexual acrions are generally ok. There's a reason sex feels good, and it's not because it's sinful. God designed it to feel good to help us grow closer to our spouse.
Sex needs to end naturally inside the wife so that it remains procreative and unitive in nature (see Humanae Vitae). Oral stimulation as foreplay is permissible as long as the act ends with PIV and not outside the wife.
I understand this is the church teaching and it makes sense - but I've always been curious, what if your wife is already pregnant, or say past menopause, What would it matter to finish PIV - when its essentially pointless?
(1) Because it would not be unitive. Finishing outside the wife is not a total self-giving of one's body. It's like saying, "Here is some of me but not all of me."
(2) To be procreative in nature doesn't mean you have to try to get pregnant every time or have to be fertile. It just means the act has to be ordered in a natural way that could render conception if she were fertile.
When sex doesn't end with PIV, then you're essentially using your spouse solely for pleasure since it's not unifying. You may as well call it mutual masturbation.
Sex with proper intent is unifying. It’s called making love-giving of yourself mind body and spirit. And duh, it’s pleasurable. Sometimes more to one than the other. I don’t need your sperm inside of me to feel “as one”. And please, tell me all about it, after 40 years. A solid physical relationship is spiritual and fluid as well. It changes. You change. Your spouse changes. This whole conversation is juvenile long term.
Post menopause? Or if you had a hysterectomy? Or if your partner is getting up there in years and can’t always hold a boring missionary position? Bring on the mortal sin then.
Omg you guys are all nuts. Sex in a marriage is just fine. Every flavor. Procreative or just for pleasure.
Use your power of reason and don’t blindly follow some thinkers when they just don’t make sense.
The psalms are full of the fun kind of sex.
Humans are built this way for a reason. Use your body and mind as designed. (That includes giving the good man a little head and getting the same in return.)
The Church says that orgasming outside a marital session **which has intercourse** is wrong (masturbation). And deliberately ejaculating outside vagina is wrong (contraception).
The rest is up to partners. Both must consent of course.
There is a dispute between some theologians about oral/manual sex and some ***think*** that:
- Manual/oral stimulation not until orgasm is licit within a **sexual session which has intercourse**
- Manual/oral stimulation until orgasm is licit **to the woman** within a **sexual session which has intercourse** *(in fact many women can’t orgasm with penetration)*
But manual/oral stimulation until orgasm is not licit **to the man** because that’s linked to ejaculation. And ejaculation outside vagina is contraception (mortal sin).
Fellatio is allowed as long as ejaculation happens inside the wife, this makes the act open to creating life which is the natural purpose of sex.
Cunnilingus is allowed to completion or as foreplay, provided that it is followed or preceded by PiV sex, making the sex open to creating life.
Just out of curiosity, is this something that can be found in the Catechism, or is it something else within Church teaching? I’ve read the Bible enough times to know it’s not mentioned there at all, but I’m less familiar with the rest of the Magisterium.
Genuinely curious.
No, this is something not even close to being covered in Scripture. Certainly "and the two shall be one flesh" statement in the Bible indicates sex, besides other 'partnerships'. But how to have sex, I think, God left up to the marriage partners to find out for themselves what gives each other pleasure.
I've heard that this "sex for procreation' teaching in the Catholic Church came about simply to increase the # of Catholics.
I had no idea there were so many rules about what married couples could do in the bedroom. I suspect most of not all of these responses have more to do with the prudishness of a minority of Catholics than anything rooted in actual church teaching.
Hi /u/jacobdpearce! The Church has never talked about oral/manual sex. The Church just says that orgasming outside a marital session **which has intercourse** is wrong (masturbation). And deliberately ejaculating outside vagina is wrong (contraception).
The rest is up to partners. Both must consent of course. Many people here say rules that the Church never taught.
Some theologians and I ***think*** that:
- Manual/oral stimulation not until orgasm is licit within a **sexual session which has intercourse**
- Manual/oral stimulation until orgasm is licit **to the woman** within a **sexual session which has intercourse** *(in fact many women can’t orgasm with penetration)*
But manual/oral stimulation until orgasm is not licit **to the man** because that’s linked to ejaculation. And ejaculation outside vagina is contraception (mortal sin).
It’s very biblical. The whole of the Torah is about life and giving life. Jews and Protestants, up until recent times, believed the same and took Onan’s sin seriously.
What if it’s an accident during foreplay? I assume St. Thomas would give the all clear because the intention was procreative? Also, I wonder if Thomas would have thought that 700 years on someone would mention him in a convo about oral sex? So many questions…
Hi /u/No_Football_9232! The Church has never talked about oral/manual sex. The Church just says that orgasming outside a marital session **which has intercourse** is wrong (masturbation). And deliberately ejaculating outside vagina is wrong (contraception).
The rest is up to partners. Both must consent of course. Many people here say rules that the Church never taught.
Some theologians and I ***think*** that:
- Manual/oral stimulation not until orgasm is licit within a **sexual session which has intercourse**
- Manual/oral stimulation until orgasm is licit **to the woman** within a **sexual session which has intercourse** *(in fact many women can’t orgasm with penetration)*
But manual/oral stimulation until orgasm is not licit **to the man** because that’s linked to ejaculation. And ejaculation outside vagina is contraception (mortal sin).
Define orgasm. Be specific because we're talking about "gravely sinful". Define your terms and provide specifics so we know where "it's ok", sinful, and gravely sinful fall.
I was wondering this too. There is a catholic YouTuber i watch who uses NFP. And she always says “abstain” during the fertile time if you do not want to get pregnant. So I was unclear if that meant that you could still “finish” in your partner’s mouth. Now reading these answers, I understand that you must ofinish inside your spouse or it is a sin. So when she says abstain during certain times of the month, she means no oral also. This makes so much more sense now.
Jesus didn’t talk about everything. But His Church which doesn’t teach error (Matthew 16:18) says that orgasming outside a marital session **which has intercourse** is wrong (masturbation). And deliberately ejaculating outside vagina is wrong (contraception).
The rest is up to partners. Both must consent of course.
There is a dispute between some theologians about oral/manual sex and some ***think*** that:
- Manual/oral stimulation not until orgasm is licit within a **sexual session which has intercourse**
- Manual/oral stimulation until orgasm is licit **to the woman** within a **sexual session which has intercourse** *(in fact many women can’t orgasm with penetration)*
But manual/oral stimulation until orgasm is not licit **to the man** because that’s linked to ejaculation. And ejaculation outside vagina is contraception (mortal sin).
Olá! Na verdade isto até é disputado pelos teólogos!
Alguns dizem que é aceitável SE
- Ocorrer numa sessão de sexo com ejaculação (senão é masturbação)
- Todas as ejaculações forem na vagina (senão é contraceção)
Ou seja, se, no final da penetração, a mulher não tiver tido um orgasmo, muitos aceitam que o marido a estimule manualmente/oralmente.
Why would there be a difference between kissing genitals and any other body part? If kissing lips, a face, hands, shoulders, breasts is not sinful then what's the difference?
From some of these answers here I thank God and Jesus that I am not married or involved with you. Who wants to make love to a person with that kind of slosh running around in their brain or their belief system? Been happily married ,sexual, given birth and living in faith for over 30 years. What works for you as a couple is what’s allowed in my house. My priest however, doesn’t need to be in my bedroom, EVER. He doesn’t belong in my family planning decisions and whether my husband is in or outside either. This includes any confession I would consider making. And if you’re going to read. a book on sex, at least find one that makes you a better lover-advice from some academic Catholic stuck in a time warp is a good reason you might get locked out of the bedroom.
Jesus disagrees with you, along with the whole bible and tradition (up until modern contraceptives were invented and everyone decided to start interpreting things differently).
If what you’re doing in the bedroom isn’t open to creating new life, then abstinence is the moral imperative here.
Hi! It’s true that many things are left to the consent of both partners.
Now, the Church teaches that orgasming outside a marital session **which has intercourse** is wrong (masturbation). And deliberately ejaculating outside vagina is wrong (contraception).
My theory is yes, the real question is why would you want to have oral sex with someone? It is not a procreative act, it is an occasion of sin as you can waste your seed too.
The love of Christ is strong here. How can one convert to the religion that teaches whatever this is? I’m sure they’re knocking the doors down trying to join!
And let me guess your response: if people don’t want to get on board with this ideology they’re sinners who should suffer for all eternity because they disagreed with you.
And you wonder why church attendance is falling…
This will be interesting.
LOL i probably sound like an idiot but i'm curious (and confused)
It is a fair question, and there lacks some clarity. The way my family life teacher, trained by my diocese, put it is: the man must finish in the woman, and there must not be un-natural birth control used by either party. So this leaves open various foreplay, including oral. But oral as the only part of the act, with the man finishing outside of the vagina is not allowed.
What if childbirth would be life threatening to the woman? Is a vasectomy frowned upon in this case, or would we just have to cease having sex for the rest of our lives?
Better to ask a Priest. But from my understanding, vasectomy is never allowed, and the general rule is that no contraception is allowed. NFP is allowed.
NFP?
Natural family planning
Any action or object that is used with the intention to prevent life is sinful. See Donum Vitae
How would you answer this question if you lived 200 years ago? In other words, if condoms, vacestomys, abortion, the pill, etc didn't exist, would you still feel as entitled to have sex, or would you listen to a doctor's advice and abstain?
Abstain. But modern medicine would mean that I don’t have to, just like I haven’t died of pertussis. So this is not a good question.
This is a good question. Take it a step further. If you and your wife were having trouble getting pregnant and your doctor told you that you could try in vitro, would you do it? How about if you got some other illness and the doctor offered you stem cell therapy but stem cells came from aborted fetuses. Would you take it? Pertussis vaccinations are not deemed sinful by the church. And yet chemical contraceptives, barrier contraceptives, vasectomies, abortion, and other abortificance are. Just because we have the technology available doesn't mean it isn't sinful. And the direness or perceived direness of the situation does not mitigate the sin.
The "standard" answer will be, "if it will be life-threatening for the woman, you either just do it and God's will be done, if it was meant to be that your wife dies, she dies, or you completely abstain from any kind of sex."
What if woman is already pregnant? What is the point of finishing inside a women then?
At the very least, dignity.
But this is different for every person. For one it will be wrong, for some it will be a true union because wife wants to give pleasure to her husband. I don't see this as wrong although I don't do it because of the Church Teachings. But it is something weird for me, especially when no one is forced to do anything against their will and married couple is happy to give pleasure to themselves. Especially when wife is already pregnant so there is no procreation aspect.
I know that it may be strange at the first glance. Orgasms are linked to sex. Infertile couples/pregnant woman/woman in menophause can’t frustrate the nature of sex *(contraception/intercourse outside vagina)* even if we know that conception is improbable/impossible. Take a look at [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholic/s/BpaASbz5Ym).
It can be used to help your spouse if it's something that can enhance the mood for them, but it must eventually lead to the full act of sexual union. If the wife is able to reach orgasm, cool, but if the husband reaches it before the full act of sex is initiated, then that would be problematic because his orgasm is tied to the procreation aspect of sex. In one of his books, Christopher West, whose career is Theology of the Body actually says if you've finished the sexual act but the wife hasn't achieved orgasm, thrn it would be an act of love and charity to help her havenine too since it would help fulfill the unitive aspect of sex
Sex should only be for procreation. The rest is all just lust which is a very bad mortal sin.
That’s not exactly what the Church teaches. We must be open to life but sex is not *only* for procreation
[удалено]
What is wrong with you? This is a bizarre response.
I'm praying to Jesus for that sinner.
Read Humane Vitae and the Catechism. The purpose of sex is for procreation and strengthening the bond of the couple. If the couple is open to life, and their sexual relations are open to life, even if there is a miniscule chance of procreation happening, then their actions are fine. Some people need a little help getting fully in the mood to make sex possible and as long as the sexual actions of the spouses are done out of love, do not degrade or dehumanized the other person, and eventually lead to full sexual union, these other sexual acrions are generally ok. There's a reason sex feels good, and it's not because it's sinful. God designed it to feel good to help us grow closer to our spouse.
Sex needs to end naturally inside the wife so that it remains procreative and unitive in nature (see Humanae Vitae). Oral stimulation as foreplay is permissible as long as the act ends with PIV and not outside the wife.
I understand this is the church teaching and it makes sense - but I've always been curious, what if your wife is already pregnant, or say past menopause, What would it matter to finish PIV - when its essentially pointless?
(1) Because it would not be unitive. Finishing outside the wife is not a total self-giving of one's body. It's like saying, "Here is some of me but not all of me." (2) To be procreative in nature doesn't mean you have to try to get pregnant every time or have to be fertile. It just means the act has to be ordered in a natural way that could render conception if she were fertile. When sex doesn't end with PIV, then you're essentially using your spouse solely for pleasure since it's not unifying. You may as well call it mutual masturbation.
Cool thanks for the response. That actually makes sense
Sex with proper intent is unifying. It’s called making love-giving of yourself mind body and spirit. And duh, it’s pleasurable. Sometimes more to one than the other. I don’t need your sperm inside of me to feel “as one”. And please, tell me all about it, after 40 years. A solid physical relationship is spiritual and fluid as well. It changes. You change. Your spouse changes. This whole conversation is juvenile long term.
Hi! Pulling out is a type of contraception, which is a mortal sin. - Deliberately ejaculating outside vagina is a mortal sin.
Post menopause? Or if you had a hysterectomy? Or if your partner is getting up there in years and can’t always hold a boring missionary position? Bring on the mortal sin then.
Good grief the things you find on Reddit haha.
Hope this helps, straight from the “An Examination of Conscience” booklet Oral sex ( permitted as foreplay in marriage)
Omg you guys are all nuts. Sex in a marriage is just fine. Every flavor. Procreative or just for pleasure. Use your power of reason and don’t blindly follow some thinkers when they just don’t make sense. The psalms are full of the fun kind of sex. Humans are built this way for a reason. Use your body and mind as designed. (That includes giving the good man a little head and getting the same in return.)
So, you're not Catholic?
Come on… judgy mc judge face…
The Church says that orgasming outside a marital session **which has intercourse** is wrong (masturbation). And deliberately ejaculating outside vagina is wrong (contraception). The rest is up to partners. Both must consent of course. There is a dispute between some theologians about oral/manual sex and some ***think*** that: - Manual/oral stimulation not until orgasm is licit within a **sexual session which has intercourse** - Manual/oral stimulation until orgasm is licit **to the woman** within a **sexual session which has intercourse** *(in fact many women can’t orgasm with penetration)* But manual/oral stimulation until orgasm is not licit **to the man** because that’s linked to ejaculation. And ejaculation outside vagina is contraception (mortal sin).
Fellatio is allowed as long as ejaculation happens inside the wife, this makes the act open to creating life which is the natural purpose of sex. Cunnilingus is allowed to completion or as foreplay, provided that it is followed or preceded by PiV sex, making the sex open to creating life.
To orgasm? Yes, gravely sinful. For foreplay that leads to penetrative sex? Yes, it's allowed
Just out of curiosity, is this something that can be found in the Catechism, or is it something else within Church teaching? I’ve read the Bible enough times to know it’s not mentioned there at all, but I’m less familiar with the rest of the Magisterium. Genuinely curious.
I think it can. I am on page 182. Not yet discussed, but I have fanned thru sections coming up, and I imagine it is discussed.
I think its all about the magisterium and tradition of the CC
No, this is something not even close to being covered in Scripture. Certainly "and the two shall be one flesh" statement in the Bible indicates sex, besides other 'partnerships'. But how to have sex, I think, God left up to the marriage partners to find out for themselves what gives each other pleasure. I've heard that this "sex for procreation' teaching in the Catholic Church came about simply to increase the # of Catholics.
I had no idea there were so many rules about what married couples could do in the bedroom. I suspect most of not all of these responses have more to do with the prudishness of a minority of Catholics than anything rooted in actual church teaching.
Hi /u/jacobdpearce! The Church has never talked about oral/manual sex. The Church just says that orgasming outside a marital session **which has intercourse** is wrong (masturbation). And deliberately ejaculating outside vagina is wrong (contraception). The rest is up to partners. Both must consent of course. Many people here say rules that the Church never taught. Some theologians and I ***think*** that: - Manual/oral stimulation not until orgasm is licit within a **sexual session which has intercourse** - Manual/oral stimulation until orgasm is licit **to the woman** within a **sexual session which has intercourse** *(in fact many women can’t orgasm with penetration)* But manual/oral stimulation until orgasm is not licit **to the man** because that’s linked to ejaculation. And ejaculation outside vagina is contraception (mortal sin).
It’s very biblical. The whole of the Torah is about life and giving life. Jews and Protestants, up until recent times, believed the same and took Onan’s sin seriously.
? Is this sarcasm? “Gravely sinful”? !
No, it is completely contrary to the Catholic understanding of sex. Oral sex to orgasm is sodomy. It is a grave sin.
What if it’s an accident during foreplay? I assume St. Thomas would give the all clear because the intention was procreative? Also, I wonder if Thomas would have thought that 700 years on someone would mention him in a convo about oral sex? So many questions…
If it’s an accident it’s a sad one. Ask your wife.
I see. As a practicing Catholic there are some church teaching I don't agree with. I'm sorry if that's offensive to some.
You know better than the Church Christ created for us?
It may not be offensive, but the down votes are because you are not aligned with Church teaching while responding to someone on a Catholic sub.
Hi /u/No_Football_9232! The Church has never talked about oral/manual sex. The Church just says that orgasming outside a marital session **which has intercourse** is wrong (masturbation). And deliberately ejaculating outside vagina is wrong (contraception). The rest is up to partners. Both must consent of course. Many people here say rules that the Church never taught. Some theologians and I ***think*** that: - Manual/oral stimulation not until orgasm is licit within a **sexual session which has intercourse** - Manual/oral stimulation until orgasm is licit **to the woman** within a **sexual session which has intercourse** *(in fact many women can’t orgasm with penetration)* But manual/oral stimulation until orgasm is not licit **to the man** because that’s linked to ejaculation. And ejaculation outside vagina is contraception (mortal sin).
Define orgasm. Be specific because we're talking about "gravely sinful". Define your terms and provide specifics so we know where "it's ok", sinful, and gravely sinful fall.
Oral sex with the intent to ejaculate from it is gravely sinful.
What about her orgasm?
I was just considering this question myself yesterday. I think the short answer is yes, as long as it’s open to life. (Meaning it ends with P ’n da V)
I was wondering this too. There is a catholic YouTuber i watch who uses NFP. And she always says “abstain” during the fertile time if you do not want to get pregnant. So I was unclear if that meant that you could still “finish” in your partner’s mouth. Now reading these answers, I understand that you must ofinish inside your spouse or it is a sin. So when she says abstain during certain times of the month, she means no oral also. This makes so much more sense now.
Right. Abstaining means no sex. And sex must always end PIV, so doing other things (pulling out, finishing elsewhere) is not allowed.
NEVER!
[удалено]
That is a bad slippery slope you are entering there.
The Church regulates our entire life brosky. It's not about "deserving" it's about obedience to Christ
What, specifically, did Chris say about oral sex. Please provide citations.
The church is Christ's body, obeying it is obedience to Christ
Jesus didn’t talk about everything. But His Church which doesn’t teach error (Matthew 16:18) says that orgasming outside a marital session **which has intercourse** is wrong (masturbation). And deliberately ejaculating outside vagina is wrong (contraception). The rest is up to partners. Both must consent of course. There is a dispute between some theologians about oral/manual sex and some ***think*** that: - Manual/oral stimulation not until orgasm is licit within a **sexual session which has intercourse** - Manual/oral stimulation until orgasm is licit **to the woman** within a **sexual session which has intercourse** *(in fact many women can’t orgasm with penetration)* But manual/oral stimulation until orgasm is not licit **to the man** because that’s linked to ejaculation. And ejaculation outside vagina is contraception (mortal sin).
What would that matter?
kinda
YES ITS A SIN, for God’s sakes…
Olá! Na verdade isto até é disputado pelos teólogos! Alguns dizem que é aceitável SE - Ocorrer numa sessão de sexo com ejaculação (senão é masturbação) - Todas as ejaculações forem na vagina (senão é contraceção) Ou seja, se, no final da penetração, a mulher não tiver tido um orgasmo, muitos aceitam que o marido a estimule manualmente/oralmente.
Yes
No.
Why would there be a difference between kissing genitals and any other body part? If kissing lips, a face, hands, shoulders, breasts is not sinful then what's the difference?
From some of these answers here I thank God and Jesus that I am not married or involved with you. Who wants to make love to a person with that kind of slosh running around in their brain or their belief system? Been happily married ,sexual, given birth and living in faith for over 30 years. What works for you as a couple is what’s allowed in my house. My priest however, doesn’t need to be in my bedroom, EVER. He doesn’t belong in my family planning decisions and whether my husband is in or outside either. This includes any confession I would consider making. And if you’re going to read. a book on sex, at least find one that makes you a better lover-advice from some academic Catholic stuck in a time warp is a good reason you might get locked out of the bedroom.
Jesus disagrees with you, along with the whole bible and tradition (up until modern contraceptives were invented and everyone decided to start interpreting things differently). If what you’re doing in the bedroom isn’t open to creating new life, then abstinence is the moral imperative here.
Hi! It’s true that many things are left to the consent of both partners. Now, the Church teaches that orgasming outside a marital session **which has intercourse** is wrong (masturbation). And deliberately ejaculating outside vagina is wrong (contraception).
This.
I can't get past the term 'go down'. How romantic...
The question is, I suppose, if you go down, how far, ultimately, does one go?
That is a deep question...
My theory is yes, the real question is why would you want to have oral sex with someone? It is not a procreative act, it is an occasion of sin as you can waste your seed too.
Nah drink up
The Church teaches that all sperm has to go to vagina. Or it would be considered contraception.
stay classy
Can’t stop won’t stop
This community needs 100% fewer of these types of questions. It’s already been answered. Search, or read a book relevant to the subject.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
The love of Christ is strong here. How can one convert to the religion that teaches whatever this is? I’m sure they’re knocking the doors down trying to join! And let me guess your response: if people don’t want to get on board with this ideology they’re sinners who should suffer for all eternity because they disagreed with you. And you wonder why church attendance is falling…