The Moral Permissibility of Marital Aids, Oral and Anal Stimulation

Selections of Theology for Married Couples: Part 4

Can Catholics do oral sex? Can Catholics do anal sex? Can Catholics use sex toys?

Short Answers

If you found this site because you did an internet search for one of those questions and want a short answer then here it is: it depends on what you mean by those terms. If by those terms you mean as foreplay/continuation of intimacy in a lovemaking session between spouses that includes the completed marital act that is open to life, then yes, with caveats. If you mean oral or anal sex to point of male ejaculation, or using sex toys for masturbatory purposes, then no, they are gravely sinful. Unfortunately, I cannot be any shorter than that because this is a complex issue. In order to fully explain these issues I have to make a variety of distinctions.

Keep scrolling to learn more.

Table of Contents

1. Controversy
2. Sports Analogies for Sex
3. Vocabulary
4. Stimulation of the Wife
5. Toys (Marital Aids)
6. The Problem of Anal Stimulation
7. Some Responses to Other Articles
8. A Final Thought About Female Satisfaction
9. Conclusion
10. Major Updates
11. Footnotes
12. Bibliography

---

Have a specific question on these topics?

Book an online coaching session with James Walther, MA, ABS author of this article, Catholic intimacy coach, and theologian.

---

Statement of Fidelity

If there are any theologians reading this series who have any objections, comments, corrections, etc. I would ask that they address me directly via email. As always, I submit my writings to the review and correction of the Magisterium.

Controversy

Before you found Catholic Intimacy, you may well have come across sites such as catechism.cc, catholicism.io, or catholicbridge.com and be wondering what is the authority of the articles on these sites. The short answer for that, is that these sites are all written by private theologians, so they have just as much authority as this site. That is to say: none. The only value that any of our writings have is in how accurately we explain the teachings of the Church on defined matters and the strength of our arguments on things that the Church has yet to explicitly define. 

There always have and always will be controversies in the Catholic Church. On any given issue there are usually many schools of thought. That is not a problem for us. As long as the issue is still open to debate, then healthy dialogue helps to advance the science of theology. An issue becomes closed to debate when the Magisterium infallibly defines the true doctrine on the issue. Until that declaration has been made, each private theologian is free to hold the position that seems most reasonable to him. It is even possible for saints and doctors of the Church to disagree, as we can see with Jerome and Augustine; Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Scotus.

I say this by way of introduction because these are controversial questions today. There are, as always, those that reject the defined teachings of the Church concerning the immorality of sodomy, contraception, masturbation, etc. These people are called heretics. Amongst those of us that respect the Church’s teachings on these issues, there are three basic schools: Personalist, Thomist, Liguorian. 

The Schools

• Pope John Paul II was the greatest of the Personalists. His Theology of the Body audience series along with his Love and Responsibility are the fountains from which all Personalists have since drawn their sexual ethics, although they do also tend to cite the older Thomist authors. As their name implies, their focus is on the human person.

• The Thomistic position is a development of Saint Thomas Aquinas’s theology and is well encapsulated in the manuals of moral theology by Tanquerey, Merkelbach, and Prümmer, respectively. As always, the Thomistic school is concerned with objective reality. 

• The Ligourian school draws from both Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus Ligouri. Saint Alphonsus is the patron saint of moral theologians and wrote extensively on sexual ethics.

Now each school has its pros and cons. Personalism is very easy for the average person to wrap their mind around, but easily breaks down into subjectivism. The Personalists accuse the Thomists of being too cold and objective. Ligouri is very direct, black and white, but can be dangerous for scrupulous souls and does not make the distinctions that the more recent (a century ago) Thomists make.

My Position

I am an unabashed Thomist. From all of my studies, I have found that the Thomistic school makes the most sense to me. It seems the most balanced and logically sound. I find the Ligourian school (as distinct from Ligouri himself) to be very scrupulous. At the same time, I think that Personalism leads to an inversion of the ends of marriage: from procreative and unitive to unitive and procreative, which leads to the couple becoming the focus of marriage rather than the family. I do, however, find that some of the expressions of the Personalists are pastorally useful. 

Review

As a last note of introduction, if you have not read my previous articles, especially the last one, please do so now, because they are necessary to fully understand the following. As in the other articles, we are exclusively considering sexual relations between husband and wife because all sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral.

• Part 1 - Ends of Marriage & Graces

• Part 2 - Justice & Chastity: The Marriage Debt

• Part 3 - The Marital Act, Cardinal Rule, and Pleasure Principles

Since writing this article, I have continued this series. For the current complete list of articles, please click this link.

Sports Analogies for Sex

We are all familiar with the old baseball metaphor for sex and while it may be a bit old and crude, it isn’t entirely off the mark. The goal of all sexual activity should be the marital act. Just as in baseball, we don’t immediately go for home plate. I mean, sure, you can go straight for home plate, but unless your spouse is also already in the mood and doesn’t need any time to warm up, that may be rather unpleasant for them.

As you may already know a virtue stands between two vices. These vices fall away from the virtue, one by excess and the other by defect.¹ So, for example, lust is the defect of chastity, while prudishness is its excess.

Now let’s make another sports analogy. This time we are talking about bowling. Now when you bowl, your ball can roll anywhere on the lane as long as it doesn’t fall in the gutters. You guessed it: falling in the gutters is falling into sin. Hitting the pins is completing the marital act in accord with the Cardinal Rule, which pertains mostly to the first end of marriage. The number of pins struck stands for how well the act fulfilled the unitive end of marriage. 

So you might think that the most virtuous thing to do on this bowling lane of virtue is to roll the ball right down the middle. With practice you might start knocking down most of the pins, but you will likely end up with lots of 7-10 splits. This is kinda like those times when the wife is left unsatisfied after her husband has already orgasmed. Now the couple can work together (roll again) to knock down those last pins, but that’s not ideal.

So how do you consistently get strikes? Use the lane! You have a lane, not a line. You don’t get any more points for using less space. You get more points for knocking down more pins. There are many styles and tricks to bowling. My favorite way is to put some English on it, hooking the ball down the side of the lane and nailing the pocket. When everything goes according to plan, I get a strike. I just have to be sure to not put too much English on it and get a gutter ball. 

Just as there are many styles of bowling, there are many bowling accessories. You can get special gloves, shoes, custom balls, and other accessories to help you bowl better. These things aren’t as important as skill and practice, but they can help. Some people use lots of them, some people use very few. It doesn’t really matter one way or another, they are just tools to help you play the game better. If you are getting strikes in every frame without them, then why bother mixing it up? But if you are missing pins and want to improve your game, then give them a try.

Let’s go back to our baseball metaphor. Our goal is to get to home plate. Whether you round third (oral stimulation of the genitals) without pausing or stop for a minute before proceeding, it doesn’t matter, so long as you make it to home plate. In our bowling analogy, the various types of foreplay are like the hook. The bowling accessories are like lingerie, marital aids, positioning devices, etc.

Vocabulary

As in all sciences, vocabulary is key in theology. We must express ourselves in words and so our meaning is only as precise as the words we use. So one distinction that will help to illuminate the following questions is between incomplete and complete acts. For example, if a couple has sex but the man doesn’t ejaculate, then the marital act is incomplete. If there is ejaculation into the vagina, then it is complete.

This distinction is important for us to discern the morality of manual, oral, and anal stimulation. For example, in common parlance, people tend to use the term oral sex to mean the oral stimulation of the genitals regardless of whether this stimulation was to the point of orgasm. We need greater precision. Since fulfillment of the Cardinal Rule depends on male ejaculation, in this article we will refer to sexual acts that are not to the point of male ejaculation (incomplete acts) as x, y, or z stimulation. Sexual acts that are to the point of male ejaculation, we will refer to by their proper names.

Incomplete	Act(s)	Complete
Manual Stimulation	(handjob, fingering, fisting)	Masturbation
Oral Stimulation	(fallatio, cunnilingus)	Oral Sodomy
Anal Stimulation	(anal penetration)	Sodomy Proper

Now to the best of my knowledge, the magisterium has never forbidden the stimulation of any particular body part or forbidden the use of any particular body to stimulate another in marriage. That may come as a shock to some; however, there are no immoral body parts. Practically every part of our bodies can be used for both moral and immoral acts, and this applies to intimacy as in other cases.

Unnatural Sins

In Genesis, we read about Onan who “spilled his seed upon the ground” (Gen 38:9). One class of sexual sins derives its name from him, while another class takes its name from the city of Sodom. Both classes are collectively referred to as unnatural sins, and the Church condemns both.

Onanistic Sins

• Contraception (regardless of method)

• Masturbation (regardless of whether it is self-stimulation or by another)

Sodomistic Sins

• Sodomy Proper (anal penetration with ejaculation anywhere other than the vagina)

• Oral Sodomy (oral penetration with ejaculation anywhere other than the vagina) 

Differences between the Schools

The above distinctions between the incomplete and complete acts are from the Thomistic school,² which the Personalists also use.³ Ligourians will say that any anal or oral penetration is sodomistic. The problem with that is if you are going to say that, then for consistency, you should say that any manual stimulation of the genitals is also immoral. In other words, spouses cannot touch each other’s private parts. Now some may want to draw an analogy with the Holy Eucharist and make the point that the laity are not to touch the Sacred Species, although we may receive the Holy Eucharist. However, this analogy immediately falls apart because the minister of the sacrament of the Eucharist, the priest, can touch the body of Christ. So too, the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony, the husband and wife, can touch each other’s bodies.  So yes, oral and manual stimulation can be used morally as foreplay preceding the marital act. We will come back to the particular case of anal stimulation. 

“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.⁴”

— May, Catholic Sexual Ethics, 246.

Stimulation of the Wife

In our age of perverse equality, some will be offended that male ejaculation has been far more important in this discussion than female orgasm. This is by no means out of disregard for women, but rather because male ejaculation is necessary for procreation. If man were to ejaculate without orgasm then the marital act could still be completed. Now the Thomistic theologians, cold as they are, acknowledge that it is permissible for a man to assist his wife to climax by other means than penetration, after he has ejaculated, if she failed to climax when he did. Tanquerey even notes that she may self-stimulate to climax in this case.⁵ Rather, than putting this in terms of permission, those following the Personalist theology of Pope John Paul II consider this stimulation to be in fulfillment of the unitive end of marriage. In that case, striving to satisfy one’s wife would fall under the fulfillment of the marriage debt.

My Opinion

Let us take into consideration:

1. the traditional theology of the secondary ends of (2a) unity, and (2b) the remedy for concupiscence;

2. the more positive Personalist perspective of the duty to try to satisfy as an expression of love and unity; 

3. and the biological complexity of the female orgasm (each woman is different in what it takes for her to climax: vaginal, clitoral, nipple, anal, etc. stimulation; the possibility of needing to orgasm more than once in a session to feel satisfied, etc.).⁶

Therefore, I would venture that it is permissible to stimulate the wife to orgasm before, during, or after the complete marital act* and as many times as it takes to reasonably satisfy her, so long as all stimulation takes place within the context of one continuous lovemaking session and there is no masturbatory affinity. So you cannot get your wife to orgasm and take a break and then come back for sex later. That would be masturbation. If, however, you help her to orgasm and then proceed to the marital act then it is simply part of foreplay.

Toys (Marital Aids)

This brings us to the question of toys (marital aids). This is a very wide category of devices and we do not have time to discuss them all in detail. The thing to keep in mind with them is that as inanimate objects, they have no agency. They have no objective morality in themselves. They can be used for moral stimulation or for immoral masturbation.

Objections

I have used the example before of condoms being used to cover the barrel of rifles as a moral use of condoms. Now some will object that the intended use for them is immoral and this is partially true. Most condoms are advertised as both a contraceptive (immoral) and to prevent STIs (moral). So even if intended to only prevent STIs, but still also acting as a contraceptive, then the use of a condom is immoral. The ends do not justify the means. Hypothetically, however, if a condom is used to prevent STIs without also serving as a contraceptive then it could be used morally. More on that below. 

Others will object that the intended purpose of the device by the creator instills its moral value. While it is interesting to consider that human inventors could infuse an end into their artificial creations like God, that is a very Germanic notion. Living in Mediterranean cultures, along with scholastic philosophy, has opened my eyes to the reality that the purpose of a tool is that for which it is used concretely. So if you use C4 to blow up tree stumps, it is quite different than using it to blow up a school.

Others will object to using toys because they are unnatural. Well, so is medicine. NaPro technology, which is an ethical form of reproductive therapy, has helped many couples to conceive. What right has someone who doesn’t need it to tell someone that does need it that it is immoral just because unnatural tools (e.g., ultrasound machines) are used?

So the real question with regards to toys is whether the thing that they are being used for is moral. If they are being used for masturbation, then they are being used immorally. The act of the person using them is sinful, they are not in themselves sinful. The same applies to our own bodies. Masturbating with one’s hand does not make that hand sinful, it makes the one masturbating sinful.

So how can one use toys (marital aids) morally?

One can use toys for the unitive end, as discussed above. For example, if a woman responds better to clitoral stimulation than to vaginal penetration, then her husband should probably make the effort to meet her needs. Some women may be satisfied with hands, others with cunnilingus, others may just get frustrated by these and be better off with a toy. Although male marital aids take different forms and men tend to be satisfied by vaginal penetration, the same idea can be applied.

Now does this mean that everyone should run out, buy, and try every toy on the market? Certainly not! In this regard, I think that the Pleasure Principles of Dr. Popcak (Personalist) are very useful guides.⁷ For example, if using a certain toy effectively replaces your spouse to meet your pleasure needs, although you fulfill the Cardinal Rule, there may be a certain masturbatory affection (tendency) present because it is not serving as a tool to unify you with your spouse. Remember pleasure should not be an end in itself!

The Problem of Anal Stimulation

The issue of anal stimulation is plural. From what was said above, hypothetically, yes, anal stimulation can be moral.⁸ In the concrete, it is strongly discouraged.⁹ Even if there is no intention or affection for sodomy, anal stimulation carries a variety of potentially grave health risks. One is that of vaginal infection, another is that of gastro-intestinal damage. If anal penetration is done with the penis as foreplay then the penis must be washed with antibacterial soap afterwards or a condom should be used. (In this hypothetically not sinful case, that would be a moral use of a condom.) Of course the condom must be removed without cross contamination before vaginal penetration occurs, which is medically risky. Even with the use of a condom, there is still the risk of the condom rupturing or gastro-intestinal damage. In the case that a toy (dildo, etc.) is used, it should not be used for vaginal or clitoral stimulation thereafter. Considering these risks, it seems to me (i.e., my humble opinion) that in the concrete, anal stimulation is usually at least a venial sin of imprudence.

Now with that said, I recognize that there may be couples for whom this form of stimulation is useful, who are able to minimize the risks, and for whom it does not violate the Pleasure Principles. Therefore, despite the Ligurian arguments, I follow the example of both Thomist and Personalists theologians recognizing that in such cases anal stimulation may be done without sin. As always, when in doubt, one should seek the guidance of an experienced confessor or spiritual director who can address your particular situation.

Some Responses to Other Articles

Below, I have written a few responses to some of the articles that first pop up when you search the three questions at the beginning of this article. Three of them are from the same author simply because he has written extensively on several sites and published a few books on the subject. 

Catechism.cc (Ron Conte, Jr.)¹⁰

This article presents a dubium which was responded to by the Sacred Penitentiary on June 3, 1916 about “onanism by means of an (artificial) instrument”. The article asserts that the artificial instrument in question is a sex toy and claims that this is proof of the Church’s condemnation. There were indeed a variety of sex toys in production at this time and had been around for millinia;¹¹ however, most of these were designed as masturbatory devices for women. The dubium is talking about onanism by a man against his wife. With this in mind and considering that contraceptives, including condoms, diaphragms, and other physical barrier methods, had been gaining traction since the 1870’s and Margaret Sanger had already founded the National Birth Control League,¹² it seems more likely that this is talking about contraceptives, i.e. onanism in the first sense of the word.

RonConte.com (Ron Conte, Jr.)¹³

In this article, Mr. Conte cites a couple paragraphs of one of Pope Pius XII’s allocutions and applies them unscrupulously to manual, oral, and anal stimulation, along with toys. In these quotes, the Pope is talking about sexual acts outside of marriage and masturbation. In the second quote, the Pope condemns these acts “whether it is done by manual touches”. But if the Pope is talking about stimulation, then that would mean that a man must not touch his wife’s breasts, since they are one of the erogenous zones and touching them can cause sexual pleasure for both man and woman. Can we really believe that touching the breasts of one’s wife is sinful when Scripture says things like, “rejoice with the wife of thy youth:...let her breasts inebriate thee at all times…” (Prov. 5:18-19)?

Catholicism.io (Ron Conte, Jr.)¹⁴

This article was written in response to a podcast by the theologian Trent Horn who also says that oral and manual stimulation, and toys are permissible. The first problem that I have with this article are the numerous ad hominem attacks against Mr. Horn and Dr. Popcak, which is beneath the dignity of a theological discussion. The second issue is that, in my opinion, he misrepresents Dr. Popcak’s thought by only referring to the “One Rule.” Now as I said in my last article, I find that this is an unfortunate term, since it does give the impression that the openness to life in the completed marital act is the only rule. Nonetheless, Dr. Popcak does qualify his One Rule with his Pleasure Principles, which seem to me to act as a sufficient guide to prevent excesses. I do appreciate, however, that Mr. Conte cites a very relevant statement of Pope Pius XII.

“This anti-Christian hedonism too often is not ashamed to elevate itself to a doctrine, inculcating the ardent desire to make always more intense the pleasure, in the preparation and in the performance of the conjugal union, as if in matrimonial relations the whole moral law were reduced to the normal performance of the act itself, and as if all the rest, in whatever way it is done, were justified by the expression of mutual affection, were sanctified by the Sacrament of Matrimony, and made worthy of praise and reward before God and conscience. There is no thought at all of the dignity of man and of the Christian — a dignity which restrains the excess of sensuality.¹⁵”

— Pius XII, "Address to Midwives," n. 68

This brings up a good point that just because something is permissible does not necessarily mean that we should all run out and do it. All things in moderation. Marital intimacy is not about trying to max out our pleasure, our sexual gratification. That pleasure is only a means to the ends of marriage. With that said, spouses can seek moderate pleasure in the marital act, as is even acknowledged by Saint Aphonsus Ligouri.¹⁶

CatholicBridge.com¹⁷

Contrary to Mr. Conte, this article makes the claim that the Church has not condemned anal stimulation as foreplay, but that she doesn’t need to.

“The Magisterium (Pope and the Bishops) doesn’t have to spell out every type of forbidden sexual behaviour like the Book of Leviticus under the Old Covenant. We are in the New Covenant. Prayer and mutual respect will draw the married couple to the truth on this issue.

The Bible, Natural Law, biology and common sense clearly indicate anal sex is not OK. If couples are doing it, they should stop, and if a priest is saying it’s OK as foreplay between married couples, he should stop. Christopher West discourages this kind of foreplay, and rightly so.”

1. Don’t put words in the Church’s mouth.

2. There is a difference between forbidden and discouraged. 

A Final Thought About Female Satisfaction

Studies have shown that many women do not orgasm from sexual intercourse alone.¹⁸ This can lead to sexual frustration, a lack of desire for sex or even a desire to avoid it, which in turn opens the door for temptations to masturbation and adultery. Pope John Paul II states emphatically,

“But the woman’s frigidity and indifference is often the fault of the man, when he seeks his own satisfaction while leaving the woman unsatisfied, something which masculine pride should in any case forbid….Similarly the natural kindness of a woman, who (so the sexologists tell us) sometimes ‘shams orgasms’ to satisfy a man’s pride, may also be unhelpful in the long run.”¹⁹

With regards to “faking it,” I would say that deception is a grave violation of the intimacy of the marital embrace. Ladies, if your husbands are not satisfying you then for the sake of your marriages you need to have open and honest communication about that. Interestingly, Saint Thomas Aquinas’s example on going out of your way to meet the unspoken sexual needs of your spouse is for a man to his wife.²⁰ In my opinion, that pastoral concern for fulfilling wives needs is a strong argument in favor of the use of oral and manual stimulation, and marital aids.

Conclusion

I am by no means telling anyone that they should use any sort of oral, anal, or manual stimulation, or toys. There is a difference between recognizing something as permissible and universally recommending it. If you want to follow the more restrictive opinion of Saint Alphonsus Ligouri and writers like Mr. Conte, that’s fine. You can take the Personalist position or the Thomist. What is not just is to use fallacious arguments to defend one’s position, put words in the Church’s mouth, or anathematize those that hold or practice one of the other opinions.

“Let all your things be done in charity.”

— 1 Cor. 16:14

Major Updates

August 27, 2023 - Since posing my opinion, I have found that at least one other theologian explicitly holds that stimulation of the wife to the point of orgasm is permissible both before and after the marital act, namely Germain Grisez (Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, vol. 1, Living a Christian Life, Chapter 9: Marriage, Sexual Acts, and Family Life, Question E: What Sexual Acts Are Appropriate for Christians?, 1. Married Couples Should Engage in Chaste Marital Acts, h) Marital sexual acts short of intercourse can be chaste, at The Way of the Lord Jesus, twotlj.org). Some other authors, including Tanquerey, only address the permissibility of such stimulation after the marital act.

Footnotes

1. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ I-II, q. 64, a. 1 & 2. at Aquinas Institute, aquinas.cc.

2. Adolphe Tanquerey, “Supplementum ad Tr. de Matrimonio,” in Synopsis Theologiæ Moralis et Pastoralis, vol. 1, De Pænitentia, De Matrimonio et Ordine, 9th ed. (Rome: Desclée & Co., 1922), n. 31-33, 25. Hereafter, this text is abbreviated as STMP.

3. William E. May, Ronald Lawler, & Joseph Boyle. Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Sumary, Explanation, & Defense. 3rd ed. (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2011), 245-6, 266: endnote 72, citing the Thomist Merkelbach; Christopher West, Good News about Sex & Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching. Updated, Revised & Expanded ed. (Cincinnati: Servant, 2018), 83-4, 205-6: endnote 9, also citing Merkelbach.

4. May, Catholic Sexual Ethics, 246.

5. STMP, n. 32. 

6. Osmo Kontula & Anneli Miettinen, “Determinants of female sexual orgasms,” in Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, October 25, 2016, at National Library of Medicine, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

7. Gregory K. Popcak,  Holy Sex!: A Catholic Guide to Toe-Curling, Mind-Blowing, Infallible Loving (New York: Crossroads, 2008), 192-193.

8. West, Good News, 83-34, and 205-6: endnote 9, also citing Merkelbach and Jone; STMP, n. 35.

9. West, Good News, 83-34; STMP, n. 35; Popcak, 248, note.

10. Ronald Conte Jr., “Use of Marital Aids (Sex Toys) - Catholic Moral Theology,” n.d., at Catechism.cc, www.catechism.cc.

11. Amie Dawson, “Sex toys: A Brief History,” August 5, 2020, at The Toy, www.thetoy.com.

12. Lisa Fogarty, “What Birth Control Was Like In Every Decade Since the 1900s: From Retro condoms to IUDs and beyond,” April 12, 2017, at Redbook, www.redbookmag.com.

13. Ronald Conte Jr., “Q. 2: Cath Catholic Married Couples Use ‘Sex Toys’?,” March 19, 2018, at The Reproach of Christ, www.ronconte.com.

14. Ronald L. Conte Jr.,  “Catholic Answers Apologist Trent Horn on Sex toys in Marriage,” August 17, 2018, at Catholicism.io, www.catholicism.io.

15. Pius XII, “Address to the Conference of the Italian Catholic Union of Obstetricians in Collaboration with the National Federation of Colleges of Catholic Midwives,” trans. Ronald L. Conte Jr., October 29, 1951, at Catholic Planet, www.catholicplanet.com.

16. Kent Lansnoski, “Alphonsus Ligouri’s Moral Theology of Marriage: Refreshing Realism, Continued Relevance,” Nova et Vetera 9.4 (2011): 15, at Academia.edu, www.academia.edu.

17. “Is anal sex ok between a married Christian couple as foreplay?,” n.d., at Catholic Bridge, www.catholicbridge.com.

18. Alice Broster, “What is the Orgasm Gap?,” Forbes, n.d., at Forbes, www.forbes.com.

19. Karol Wojtyla, Love & Responsibility, trans. H.T. Willetts (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1981), 174.

20. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ III Supplementum, q. 64, a. 2. at Aquinas Institute, aquinas.cc.

Bibliography

• Broster, Alice. “What is the Orgasm Gap?.” Forbes. N.D. At Forbes, www.forbes.com.

• Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000.

• Conte, Ronald L., Jr. “Catholic Answers Apologist Trent Horn on Sex toys in Marriage.” August 17, 2018. At Catholicism.io, www.catholicism.io.

• ———. “Use of Marital Aids (Sex Toys) - Catholic Moral Theology.” N.D. At Catechism.cc, www.catechism.cc.

• ———. “Q. 2: Cath Catholic Married Couples Use ‘Sex Toys’?”. March 19, 2018. At The Reproach of Christ, www.ronconte.com.

• Dawson, Amie. “Sex toys: A Brief History.” August 5, 2020. At The Toy, www.thetoy.com.

• Denzinger, Heinrich, Helmut Hoping, Peter Hünermann, Robert Fastiggi, and Anne Englund Nash. Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. 43rd ed. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2012.

• The Douay-Rheims Bible. At DRBO, drbo.org.

• Fogarty, Lisa. “What Birth Control Was Like In Every Decade Since the 1900s: From Retro condoms to IUDs and beyond.” April 12, 2017. At Redbook, www.redbookmag.com.

• Grabowski, John S. Sex and Virtue: An Introduction to Sexual Ethics. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2003.

• “Is anal sex ok between a married Christian couple as foreplay?.” N.D. At Catholic Bridge, www.catholicbridge.com.

• Kontula, Osmo & Anneli Miettinen. “Determinants of female sexual orgasms.” In Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology. October 25, 2016. At National Library of Medicine, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

• Lansnoski, Kent. “Alphonsus Ligouri’s Moral Theology of Marriage: Refreshing Realism, Continued Relevance.” Nova et Vetera 9.4 (2011): 1003-28, at Academia.edu, www.academia.edu.

• May, William E., Ronald Lawler, & Joseph Boyle. Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Sumary, Explanation, & Defense. 3rd ed. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2011.

• Pius XII. “Address to the Conference of the Italian Catholic Union of Obstetricians in Collaboration with the National Federation of Colleges of Catholic Midwives.” Translated by Ronald L. Conte Jr. October 29, 1951. At Catholic Planet, www.catholicplanet.com.

• ———. “Address of the Second World Congress on Fertility and Sterility.” Translated by Ronald L. Conte Jr. May 19, 1956. At Catechism.cc, www.catechism.cc.

• Popcak, Gregory K. Holy Sex!: A Catholic Guide to Toe-Curling, Mind-Blowing, Infallible Loving. New York: Crossroads, 2008.

• Salzman, Todd A. & Michael G. Lawler. Sexual Ethics: A Theological Introduction. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2012.

• Prümmer, Dominic M. Handbook of Moral Theology. Translated by Gerald W. Shelton. Manchester, NH: Benedictus Books, 2022. Kindle Edition. 

• Tanquerey, Adolphe. Synopsis Theologiæ Moralis et Pastoralis. Vol. 1. De Pænitentia, De Matrimonio et Ordine. 9th ed. Rome: Desclée & Co., 1922.

• Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiæ. At Aquinas Institute, aquinas.cc.

• West, Christopher. Good News about Sex & Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching. Updated, Revised & Expanded ed. Cincinnati: Servant, 2018.

• Wojtyla, Karol. Love & Responsibility. Translated by H.T. Willetts. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1981.

Minor Edits:

• November 26, 2022: Correction of footnote 1.

• December 10, 2022: Changed to a more descriptive title.

• November 11, 2023: Added table of contents and made minor grammatical corrections.