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.