Why do you keep creating new discussion posts when you lose arguments in other existing message threads? I will post my responses to your assertion from the other discussion thread for all to see.

For context, /u/kmo_300 quoted Liguori who says that oral sex was sodomy, but he was unable to produce the primary source for the quotation so I provided it for him. My additional comments are in [bold].

As for the actual source on Liguori, it seems to come from Theologia Moralis 916 which unfortunately has no English translation. Here is a link to an image of a commentary for that passage. Unfortunately, my Latin is not good enough to translate it with any justice. However, the gist seems to be that Liguori felt that it was sodomy, even if the act did finish in vaginal intercourse. Feel free to take a look at it to see if you concur.

Ligouri is not infallible

Indeed. What everyone needs to remember is which specific acts that are permissible as foreplay are not infallibly taught by the Church. In fact, the Church has yet to advance the theology of sexuality to a point where an official stance could be taken for the faithful to assent to, irreformable or otherwise. This is why TOB is such an important work and it will take some time for the Church to fully understand and integrate. This also means that the morality of such acts are debatable and there are moralists on both sides of the issue.

However, if you want a source with an imprimatur, look no further than the book Catholic Sexual Ethics by May, Lawler, and Boyle. On page 451 it states:

The Church's teaching that natural intercourse open to procreation is the only legitimate form of complete sexual expression, even between spouses, does not imply that mutual genital stimulation other than intercourse is forbidden for spouses as part of the preliminaries to marital intercourse according to several moral theologians noted for their orthodoxy.

Marriage is a mutual commitment in which each side ceases to be autonomous, in various ways and also sexually: the sexual liberty in agreement together is great; here, so long as they are not immoderate so as to become slaves of sensuality, nothing is shameful, if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man's seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts.

Those theologians which agree on this are identified as Heribert Jone and Benoit Merkelbach. It also lists theologians on the opposite side of the issue. Those theologians are identified as Liguori and Kippley. [I suppose we can now add Ronald L. Conte Jr. to this list as well]

Furthermore, I do know what is being taught in at least one Pontifical Seminary on this subject. The teaching is that oral stimulation is permissible as an act of foreplay within the context of marriage as long as:

1. The oral stimulation leads to vaginal intercourse that conforms to the unitive and procreative ends of the marital act.
2. The desire for intercourse is not driven by the desire for oral stimulation. In other words, it is a sin to have sex just because you want oral stimulation.

So that is what is being taught at a seminary which reports directly to the Pope and it seems to be in line with what Fr. Torraco and May had to say on the subject. Regardless of whether this teaching will be upheld as the theology of these types of acts is clarified, it is the general pastoral teaching of the Church and faithful should not feel bound by the back and forth argumentation of moral theologians. Listen to your pastors. Leave it to the theologians to hash it out.