CathInfo.com

Lad, it is fitting that you should bring up that argument now, since we are nearly at the one year anniversary of me having argued against you that Casti Connubii contains no such denouncement.  Has a year been long enough for you to develop a response to my criticism? :)

What CC teaches is right there in black and white.  It is sinful to subordinate the primary end to the secondary.  If attempting to eliminate the primary while enjoying the secondary is not subordination, than nothing is.

You falsely claimed that SUBordination is not in the original text, except that it is.  "due/necessary ordering toward the primary end".  That is what phrase means that, being the secondary end, it must be ordered to the primary end ... correctly and appropriately translated in approved translations as subordinated.  That was the big criticism of Vatican II from the conservative Fathers group, that V2 tried to make the primary and secondary ends of marriage to be co-primary ends, whereas Traditional Catholic theology has always taught that the secondary were SUBordinate to the primary.  And I explained the context of your completely out-of-context use of the Holy Office ruling.  That had nothing to do with any principled acceptance of NFP whatsoever.  In fact, the language backs up the Church's disapproval of NFP.

I already responded to you, including one long multiple-paragraph post and several smaller posts addressing each one of your false points.  I clearly addressed how your wore purposely conflating the two separate principles outlined by Pius XI, claiming that a mere physical completion of the act in the natural way was in fact identical to having the proper motive regarding the ends of the act ... which is utterly absurd and preposterous.  You make now allowance whatsoever for the distinction between the material act and the formal motive behind it, which would be rejected by all Catholic theologians.  This merely shows your desperation in attempting to justify this sinful activity.  Please be advised that by promoting this sinful activity, you yourself will be judged by God.

What CC teaches is right there in black and white.  It is sinful to subordinate the primary end to the secondary.  If attempting to eliminate the primary while enjoying the secondary is not subordination, than nothing is.

.
Here, let me refresh your memory: https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/questions-on-sex-and-specifically-the-role-of-procreation/msg630779/#msg630779
.
My position is that the subordination of ends and preservation of the nature of the act are not separable, but that if the act is preserved (i.e., performed without contraceptive intervention) the ends are ipso facto subordinated.  I base this reading on the text itself: in Latin and in the Denzinger/DeFerrari translation to English, and the commentary on the encyclical provided by its drafter, Fr. Vermeersch, who supports the way that I understand it rather than the way that you understand it.
.
Your position-- that there is a distinction between the preservation of the act and the ordering of ends-- depends entirely on the integrity of the Pieran Press translation of Casti Connubii from the 1990s, which integrity I have directly challenged, and which challenge you have never responded to (except by merely re-asserting the apparent "obviousness" of the matter).