Whoever this John Farrel is, he's absolutely right on target.

In the "Allocution to Midwives", Pius XII cites Pius XI but actually leaves out the crucial part where Pius XI in Casi Conubii effectively condemned NFP.

Pius XI taught that TWO things are required for the licitness of the marital act --

1) that the inherent power of the marital act be preserved (vs. artificial birth control)
AND
2) that the primary end can never be subordinated to the secondary

Pius XI LEFT OUT the second condition, citing only the first.  It's this second condition that precludes the licitness of NFP.  Why doesn't he cite that?

You can clearly tell in the language of this long, rambling speech that Pius XII was doing nothing more than speculating, and that he was not teaching anything authoritative (as opposed to those who claim that this authoritatively decides the matter).

See, with Pius XII, he didn't actively impose anything harmful, but he "opened the door" (and later the floodgates) to both NFP as Catholic Birth Control and also to Evolution.  Simlar to NFP, Pius XII never taught that it was acceptable, falling short of that, just "permitted' Catholics to debate the subject.

Pius XII's papacy was, alas, THE watershed that led directly to Vatican II and all its evils.  Pius XII --

1) opened the door to Evolution
2) opened the door to NFP
3) opened the door to Liturgical Experimentation (first appointed to Bugnini to begin the experimentation, push out the "reformed" Holy Week Rites, Psalter, New Vulgate translation, and permitted abominations like "The Mass of the Future"
4) failed to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
5) consecrated nearly every bishop who would go on to bring us the glories of Vatican II
6) allowed the heresiarch Cushing to persecute Father Leonard Feeney for simply reiterating defined Church dogma, thus allowing THE core error (EENS-denial, the resulting non-Catholic ecclesiology that would manifest itself explicitly at Vatican II, and rampant religious indifferentism) to fester and gain the upper hand
7) failed to curtail or curb the spread of Modernism in any way

Pius XII was consecrated a bishop on the exact day (May 13, 1917) that Our Lady appeared at Fatima.  He also claimed to have seen the miracle of the sun in the Vatican Gardens.  So it was said that he was "The Fatima Pope".

Well, probably so, but only in a tragic sense.  Could he have been the one depicted in the released part of the Secret who led the faithful to the slaughter?  He was the last Pope who by consecrating Russia could have prevented Vatican II, but he refused to do so.  Our Lady could very well have appeared on the exact day of his episcopal consecration to indicate that he was the last Pope who could prevent the evils of Vatican II by heeding her requested and consecrating Russia, to prevent the evils she came to warn about when the Jєωs, Communists, and Masons would take over the visible structures of the Church.

OP, you may find this previous discussion on the matter useful: https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church useful/article-on-nfp-from-introiboadaltaredei/

The above-linked thread references even previous threads that you may also find useful. 

Whoever this John Farrel is, he's absolutely right on target.

In the "Allocution to Midwives", Pius XII cites Pius XI but actually leaves out the crucial part where Pius XI in Casi Conubii effectively condemned NFP.

Pius XI taught that TWO things are required for the licitness of the marital act --

1) that the inherent power of the marital act be preserved (vs. artificial birth control)
AND
2) that the primary end can never be subordinated to the secondary

Pius XI LEFT OUT the second condition, citing only the first.  It's this second condition that precludes the licitness of NFP.  Why doesn't he cite that?

.
I believe you are wrong to make the distinction you are making. Pius XI teaches that if the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved, the ends are necessarily subordinated. We have argued this specific point about once a year since 2018 or so. Do you have any new arguments or evidence to back up this distinction? 

I believe you are wrong to make the distinction you are making. Pius XI teaches that if the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved, the ends are necessarily subordinated.

Utter hogwash.  He teaches nothing of the sort.  That is your spin on it, and your spin is absurd and ridiculous.  You're really going from bad to worse in terms of the types of things that you defend here.

As for my "arguments," I need merely cite the text of CC.  Since it is YOU who make the claim (that's nowhere in the text), the burden of proof is on YOU to make the argument.  But the argument is utter garbage.

Here's the actual text of CC:

For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

He says that the secondary ends of marriage may be preserved so long as A AND B conditions are met.  There's nothing in the text that asserts that the former is automatically met when the latter is met.  So the burden of proof is quarely on YOU to prove this.

His grammar makes it quite clear ... SO LONG AS [non-subordination] AND SO LONG AS [nature of the act is preserved]

Simple logic (Logic 101) dictates that the act is not forbidden if A AND B are in play, meaning that if EITHER condition is missing, it's forbidden.

What you claim Pius XI is teaching is nowhere to be found in this text.  So the burden is squarely on you to prove it.

It's quite clear that he's speaking about the FORMAL aspect (ends) along with the MATERIAL aspect (intrinsic nature of the act).  For acts to be human acts, they require both the material act AND the formal intent.  You can sin by formal intent even when the act itself is not intrinsically evil.

If you take $100 off a table thinking it's yours, whereas in reality it belongs to someone else, there's a grave material injustice there (it's intrinsically unjust), but you commit no sin due to lack of formal intent.  If on the other hand, you take $100 off the table thinking it belongs to someone else (whereas it's actually your own), while the act is not intrinsically unjust (as it's actually your money and you are not in unjust possession of it), you still commit the grave sin of theft due to your formal intent.

For you to claim that the material aspect alone ensures compliance with the formal aspect is utter absurdity and contradicts all Catholic moral theology.

Ladislaus, here is the Deferrari translation of the passage in question: 

[Sterile relations are intrinsically lawful because] in matrimony itself, as in the practice of the conjugal right, secondary ends are also considered, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence, which spouses are by no means forbidden to attempt, provided the intrinsic nature of that act is preserved, and so its due ordering is towards its primary end. 

.
Contra the translation you are using, the one I have produced says that if the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved, then the ends are duly ordered. So, which translation is correct?
.
As an accomplished Latinist, I imagine you will appreciate the original Latin as well:
.

...dummodo salva semper sit intrinseca illius actus natura ideoque eius ad primarium finem debita ordinatio (AAS 22, 539)

.
The affably erudite Fr Vermeersch, who was Pius XI's chief moral consultant and the principal ghost-writer of the encyclical, was commissioned to release a small catechism of commentary on it. There is no greater human authority on the meaning of the encyclical, and he explains:

As long as the act takes place normally it remains objectively directed toward its primary end, which is generation; and since, according to the maxim that the purpose of the law is not within the matter of the law (finis legis non cadit sub legem), there is no obligation, while observing the law, to intend the end for which it was promulgated, it follows that the act is not necessarily vitiated by deliberately choosing a certain time with the intention of avoiding conception. (What is Marriage? A Catechism arranged According to the Encyclical Casti Connubii, 1932, p. 44)

.
That is my case in brief. I have given it to you in this thread and this one. What is your rebuttal?

By the way, that Dimond Bros. link quoted some heartbreaking letters to the editor of Seattle Catholic…

Yeah, that's the Dimond brothers for ya. All about emotion, rhetoric, and being wrong SO OFTEN. But their worst crimes are those against Charity, where they presume to cut off Catholics (by excommunication) who are objectively part of the Mystical Body of Christ. That makes THEM schismatic. That's what a schismatic does -- they cut themselves off from the Church.

When you take a chainsaw to the Mystical Body of Christ like some demonic villain in a horror movie -- then YOU are the bad guy. It's simple.

Controversy is fine. Rhetoric is fine. Arguing is fine. But condemning and excommunicating others? That is over the line.

The Dimond Brothers have plenty of zeal -- but 100% of it is BITTER ZEAL which works against God's goals and interests, not for them.

I'm not a theologian, I don't play one on TV (or on CathInfo), and I won't presume to rule anything "definitively" in this NFP debate. I just want to point out ONE piece of stupidity from the Dimond Brothers, to make my point about them. This was quoted from their page against NFP:

“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.  Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

“Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death.  As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.’  Onan, the son of Judah, did this and the Lord killed him for it (Gen. 38:8-10).

This is CLEARLY talking about artificial birth control, not NFP. Just saying. Carry on...