To be precise, you shouldn't want the Priest's opinion, you want God's direction on a particular matter, it just happens to come through the Priest. In practice, I pray for the Priest and that God would speak through him to direct me in the particular concern that I have. Doing that, I have received some very solid traditional direction from some rather "liberal" Priests and, once in a while, some advice that I would consider "liberal" from a solid traditional Priest. Tells me that not all my opinions and judgements might be correct in every matter.

To add clarity, it's not just people seeking a permissive opinion that engage in "Priest-shopping"; it happens quite often that the scrupulous will do the same thing, trying to find a Priest that will condone their opinion or desires as well.

Obviously, this is for those who are married and have need of access to the information.  Those who aren't married or who don't need the info are cautioned not to be curious.  There's a reason it's in Latin.

Get yourself an OCR/AI companion such as this:  https://sider.ai/

This will allow you to translate Latin as you go through the following resources:

1871 - https://archive.org/details/compendio-della-teologia-morale-di-alfonso-maria-de-liguori-volume-2/page/467/mode/2up
1880 - https://archive.org/details/theologiamoralis02scav/page/696/mode/2up
1884 - https://archive.org/details/CompendiumTheologiaeMoralis/page/791/mode/2up
1885 - https://archive.org/details/compendiumtheol03gurygoog/page/400/mode/2up
1890 - https://archive.org/details/compendiumtheolo0002gury/page/400/mode/2up
1911 - https://archive.org/details/cu31924021851526/page/n95/mode/2up
1911 - https://archive.org/details/summatheologiaem01nold/page/n501/mode/2up
1925 - https://archive.org/details/compendiumtheolo0002ferr/page/726/mode/2up
1927 - https://archive.org/details/plaintalksonmarr0000revf/page/46/mode/2up
1935 - https://archive.org/details/summatheologiaem0000merk/page/946/mode/2up
1936 - https://archive.org/details/moralpastoralthe0004davi_h2g7/page/248/mode/2up
1945 - https://archive.org/details/moralpastoralthe0004davi_y0j2/page/n5/mode/2up
1958 - https://archive.org/details/catholicmarriage00kell/page/36/mode/2up


All of these have imprimaturs, and are written by real theologians, not keyboard theologians.

There is much in these manuals that will be helpful and give clarity on this topic.  All of them are in complete agreement, and these sample principles from Compendium Theologiae Moralis 1884 is carried through to all of them:

---

938. Whatever is necessary for completing the conjugal act, or useful for performing it more easily, quickly, or perfectly, is entirely permissible for spouses. However, anything that, in the conjugal act, harms generation or induces pollution outside of the natural union is seriously illicit. Anything ultimately useless or indifferent to remotely and indirectly procuring generation or reasonably promoting the conjugal affection is equally illicit, but does not exceed a venial sin.

Reason for the first: Whoever has the right to the end also has the right to the necessary or useful means, unless otherwise prohibited; and those for whom the principal is permissible, the accessory is also permissible, as well as the means to it.

Reason for the second: Voluntary effusion of seed is not permissible except in order for generation. Marriage only gives spouses the ability for effusion of seed, which can directly serve generation. Otherwise, if people could enjoy just the pleasure itself without the consequent burden of offspring to be raised and educated, the generation of children would easily be neglected or deliberately avoided, and society itself would decline toward destruction.

Reason for the third: Only pleasure would be sought in these things, which, as said above, is indeed a sin, but doesn't exceed venial.

939. Resolutions

Any honest kisses between spouses and touches in both modest and less modest parts (if done cautiously) are innocent by the reason of demonstrating conjugal affection or fostering love, even if sometimes involuntary pollution occurs by accident. All honest signs of love, even tender ones, as means to an end, are permissible for those who must become one heart and one flesh by the matrimonial bond (cf. S. Alphons, n. 933).

Touches and actions that are intended to arouse are generally considered less honorable unless they are directly related to coupling. Even inherently dishonorable actions that are necessary or useful for arousal are not considered grave offenses when they serve as preparation for the act of coupling. However, these actions become venial if they are done solely for pleasure, even if they precede coupling immediately. They are considered mortal offenses if they expose one or both spouses to the risk of defilement before coupling, which can easily happen if they linger too long before proceeding with the marital act.

---

End of quote.

There is much more in these moral theology manuals which wouldn't be suitable for posting here.  The moral theologians are always quite specific about what is forbidden.  As you go through these, you will notice what is missing from the list of "forbidden acts".  On these topics, theologians rarely get into the weeds in terms of what is permitted, citing the first principle and leaving it at that.

Moral theology is not always an exact science but rather involves men making their best judgments based on moral principles, Divine and Natural law, and the teachings of the Church. This is why there are variations in what some theologians deem acceptable while others may not. I'm not going to get into the details on this, but if you read the moral theology works from the 16th century and compare them to St. Alphonsus' works from the 18th century and later, you'd be surprised at the number of ideas that had been abandoned/changed even in that small time frame, and not all of them had only to do with increasing knowledge of biology. 

And in terms of the St. Alphonsus quote that everyone keeps sharing, it's important to note that what he refers to is irrumatio, not the other unspoken term that is the elephant in the room (starts with an F).  They are indeed different.  And I blame translations from Latin to English to be the chief cause of the confusion, and people like Ronald Conte Jr. as a close second.  But even irrumatio, St. Alphonsus quotes those theologians of his day who say that is permitted, so long as the danger of pollution isn't present. He quotes those who think it's wrong, and simply places his opinion with them.

That's all I'm going to say on this topic.

There are a variety of opinions on the subject from pre Vatican 2 moralists and theologians and saints etc and no firm consensus. It is important to remember that if a number of pre Vatican 2 moral theologians, teach that a certain act is acceptable, you cannot bind people’s consciences to accept a more rigorous interpretation. Even St Alphonsus admitted that someone following the advice of a more permissive moral theologian would NOT commit a sin. This is a common principal in moral theology otherwise there would be chaos and scrupulously everywhere. Use common sense. At the most, it seems that  these acts could be venially sinful if done out of lustful motives. I do not think most traditional priests would say that the act that the poster is asking about would be forbidden.

That's all true, but if we're going to have an adult conversation, actually use the correct terms, not some vagary. That was the point.

That's all true, but if we're going to have an adult conversation, actually use the correct terms, not some vagary. That was the point.

Ah yes, agreed.

To be fair, the OP wrote this:

is there a resource that explains what is or isn't permissible? I don't want people here to explain because this is a public forum and may cause scandal but pointing me in the right direction would help.

It was ok until people began to be more explicit, in my opinion.

The original anonymous poster was probably not the one to make the indiscreet posts.

Either way, I think that he got what he asked for, since people gave links to many Moral Theology manuals plus some useful advice.

If you’re trying to find clear, trustworthy guidance on what really is and isn’t permitted "in the bedroom", the passage below is well worth reading. It’s taken from the 1866 Roman edition of Compendium Theologiae Moralis (the first edition was published, I believe, around 1851) by Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J. (1801–1866), with notes by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. (1805–1881). Building on the work of St. Alphonsus Liguori, these Jesuit theologians gave classical shape to the Thomistic-Alphonsian moral system that formed confessors and seminarians for generations — including virtually all Trad priests today. Their work represents Catholic moral theology at its mature stage before the modern upheavals: clear in principle, calm in tone, and refreshingly practical in application.

Before this synthesis came together, moralists were anything but united. One author would call something mortal that another called venial or not sinful at all. Not a few moralists viewed the pleasure inseparable from the marital act with suspicion and restraint, as though sin lurked within the very enjoyment that nature had joined to it.  Some multiplied prohibitions to the point of scrupulosity; others offered little help. It was St. Alphonsus who brought order and balance, blending the older rigor with pastoral prudence. Gury then codified this approach in a concise, teachable system, and Ballerini’s annotated Roman editions refined and stabilized it — giving confessors and married couples a stable rule that preserved modesty and peace of conscience while keeping the sanctity of marriage intact.

Far removed from both the laxity of modern moral liberalism and the puritanical severity of the rigorists, this approach stands out for its serene, balanced reasoning — the kind that marked the approved manuals of the pre-Conciliar Church.

In this thread (and others like it), a lot of what gets posted amounts to personal opinions (i.e., "no extra stuff", etc.), scattered quotations from saints (or attributions, i.e., "Saint So and So said X"), or even links to Novus Ordo “experts” like Ronald Conte Jr. (a self-appointed Roman Catholic Novus Ordo "theologian” who blends his own "principles" with Vatican II sources [i.e., Humanae Vitae, the 1983 Code, New Catechism, etc] and private speculation, grossly misquoting and distorting St. Alphonsus to support his own rigorist/puritan theories). 

But these are, in the end, just opinions. The great moral theologians were well aware of the same quotations from St. Albert, St. Augustine, St. Alphonsus, and any others that get cited. They didn’t build private moral systems out of isolated sayings; they integrated them within the ordered framework of Catholic moral theology. Detached from that framework, such bits of piety easily turn into what Ballerini called “fanciful apprehensions” — fragments mistaken for doctrine.

From that solid foundation, virtually every respected moral theologian of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries taught the same essential principles. The synthesis laid down by St. Alphonsus and developed by Gury and Ballerini was received across the Jesuit, Dominican, Franciscan, Sulpician, and Redemptorist schools alike — and reaffirmed by Pietro Scavini (1790–1869), Jozef Aertnys, C.Ss.R. (1828–1915), Cornelius Damen, C.Ss.R. (1881–1953), Domenico Palmieri, S.J. (1829–1909), August Lehmkuhl, S.J. (1834–1918), Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S. (1854–1932), Dominic Prümmer, O.P. (1866–1931), Henry Davis, S.J. (1866–1952), Benedict Merkelbach, O.P. (1871–1942), Felix Maria Cappello, S.J. (1879–1962), Heribert Jone, O.F.M. Cap. (1885–1967), and many others who maintained the same steady synthesis — firm in doctrine, free from laxity, and equally free from scrupulous rigor.

Finally, it is noteworthy that this 1866 Roman edition of Compendium Theologiae Moralis bears the imprimatur of Fr. Hieronymus (Jerome) Gigli, O.P., Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace — the Dominican priest who served as Pope Pius IX’s official theologian and censor for works printed in Rome. A second imprimatur was granted by Archbishop Peter de Villanova Castellacci, Titular Archbishop of Petra and Vicegerent (Vicar General) of Rome. As Vicegerens, he acted as the deputy of the Cardinal Vicar, serving as the vicar general for the Diocese of Rome.

The author advances this general principle with deliberate care: that, apart from that disorder which is against nature (My Clarification: The phrase “that disorder which is against nature” (illa inordinatio quae est contra naturam) is clarified in the surrounding context. It refers specifically to acts that directly thwart the natural power and order of generation — that is, acts which pervert the generative faculty itself and thereby oppose the primary end of the marital act. These are what the classical moral theologians call “sins against nature” (peccata contra naturam).), scarcely anything can occur between spouses in this matter that can rightly be condemned as a grave sin.

Among various authors, one finds some condemning one kind of act as gravely sinful, others condemning another. Yet these are merely particular opinions, not derived from solid and certain principles, but rather from fanciful apprehensions or emotional exaggerations.

Some appeal to indecency and turpitude, and, with cries and declamations, they call the acts in question horrendous, abominable, most vile, and so forth — as though the reason for sin or the gravity of guilt were to be sought in the indecency of an act. Yet even the most lawful acts, and indeed those prescribed by nature herself, must, by reason of their natural indecency, be performed in secrecy and darkness.

Others appeal to the notion of unbridled lust, as though lust did not show itself most unbridled precisely in that act in which the purpose of marriage is consummated; or as though marriage itself had not been instituted precisely as a remedy for lust; or as though marriage could serve as a remedy for lust in any other way than by allowing that strong desire for pleasure to be satisfied — but only under the condition, as St. Thomas Aquinas notes, that it neither runs beyond the bounds of lawful marriage nor contradicts the natural purpose of generation.

In truth, unless one sins against one or the other of these — namely, against the good of fidelity or the good of procreation — no other solid reason appears by which any form of disorder between spouses could certainly be accused as a grave sin. Once this principle is rightly established, it gives the confessor a clear and reliable rule, by which he may protect both the sanctity of the sacrament and the salvation of penitents.

The sanctity of the sacrament demands that discussion of these matters occur only under urgent necessity. Hence, the confessor must be entirely averse to prying into such details and should hardly ever ask any question beyond something general, such as whether the penitent’s conscience is troubled by any scruple in this regard — and even that should not be asked without cause. If, however, the penitent raises the matter directly, the confessor must respond.

To ensure that such a response is brief, sufficient, and respectful of the sacredness of the sacrament, the rule already stated provides the best possible guidance. The welfare of penitents likewise demands this restraint. For they can easily become troubled by scruples concerning acts which they can scarcely bring themselves to name — and which, in truth, should never be described explicitly by either penitent or confessor. The principle already stated perfectly serves to remove both such scruples and the necessity of naming what modesty forbids to be expressed.

Once it is made clear to the penitent that nothing is mortally sinful between spouses unless something is done contrary to the end of marriage or of generation, and that therefore nothing in this regard constitutes matter necessary for confession (though lighter faults may at times occur), all the difficulties mentioned above are effectively resolved.

For past actions, once the penitent has confessed in general terms — as is commonly done — to having fallen in some way in this matter, and the confessor, by means of a general question, ascertains that something serious may have been involved, he should immediately refrain from further inquiry. It will suffice for the penitent to confess in general terms, for example: “I have committed a sin against nature,” or, “I have gravely failed in this matter against my conscience.” If necessary, the number of such sins may be asked, and the obligation of confession is thus fully satisfied.

For future conduct, the application of this rule prevents penitents from sinning gravely through mere mistaken scrupulosity of conscience, and it also provides an easy means for them to make proper confession if needed. As for venial faults, penitents should be advised in three ways.

First, that a spouse is not guilty of even a venial fault if, to avoid offending the other party, he or she passively allows something, not demanding it but merely tolerating it. Second, when that excuse does not apply, and the penitent wishes nonetheless to confess these lighter faults (for confession of venial sins is not obligatory), they should do so in entirely general terms, saying only something such as: “I have been somewhat negligent in the marital duty,” without ever specifying the particular acts involved. The holiness of the sacrament and the danger inherent in such subject matter require that nothing more than what is necessary be expressed. Third, if a penitent should happen to encounter a confessor so imprudent as to ask for further details, the penitent may, and indeed ought, to reply modestly that there is nothing further to be added on that point.

Since we are speaking of the necessary caution a confessor must exercise in such matters, it is appropriate to note how he should respond to a woman who is about to be married and is anxious to avoid sin in marital relations. Gobat (in Experientia Theologica, tractate 10, case 17, nos. 648–649) answers thus: If such a young woman has a living mother, she should be gently advised to speak with her mother about these matters rather than with her confessor (Burghaber adds: or, if not her mother, with another female relative).

If she has no mother, or modesty prevents her from asking, the confessor should tell her to obey her husband as her head, even in these matters. If her husband should request something about which she is uncertain, she should gently ask him to refrain; if he insists, claiming that he knows what the laws of marriage permit, she should obey, being assured that she does not offend God when she obeys her superior in a doubtful matter. Later, at the first suitable opportunity, she may ask her confessor privately whether what she consented to was in fact lawful for spouses.

Thus, with prudence and restraint, the confessor preserves both the purity of the sacrament and the peace of conscience of the faithful. By holding firmly to the principle that nothing between spouses constitutes a mortal sin of lust except that which gravely violates either fidelity or procreation, he avoids unnecessary questioning, discourages scrupulosity, and upholds both modesty and truth within the sacred forum of confession.

Source:
Jean-Pierre Gury (1801–1866); revised and annotated by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. (1805–1881), Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Vol. II (Rome, 1866), p. 811 ff., footnote (a).
Available at: https://archive.org/details/compendiumtheol02gury/page/810/mode/2up

Yes, only the Church can bind consciences ... and while is PERMITTED to go with whatever opinion is out there, just make sure you really agree with it and really believe it to be the right one, and aren't JUST picking it because it's the one you want.  I think that's important, to be sincere in those decisions rather than just going with what you want to do.

Take what's permitted to do on Sunday.  Quite a few theologians are lax on that, but just make sure you don't agree with them simply because ... say ... you want to go shopping at the mall on a Sunday, vs. ... that you were persuaded that their position was the correct one.

Conversely, the scrupulous individual might err in the other direction by feeling he's required to accept the most restrictive opinion for fear of sin.  That too isn't right.  While there's almost no risk of sin if you go that route, it can also lead to an exacerbatoin of your scruples.

If you HONESTLY don't know and aren't picking one just because it's the one you want to be true for various ulterior motives, then you also just flip a coin or else ask God for a sign, or even do as the Apostles did and draw lots.