It was a good article.
But the fact is that sometimes what appears contradictory at first glance in Magisterial teachings over the centuries may upon deeper reflection be seen not to be so, but the same principle applied to different circumstances.
An example of this is Church teaching on usury. In the common understanding, lending money at interest, was itself held to be unjust. But Church teaching as such was more nuanced and made certain distinctions. Finally, in resolving the question that had arisen, the Fifth Lateran Council decreed, "For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk." a definition which now precludes most modern forms
Likewise, the same is true of Church teaching on religious liberty. Pope Pius XII who believed in the Social reign of Christ the King Himself held to a form of religious liberty, not that error has any rights, but that not impeding it directly with civil legislation was justifiable under certain conditions. Of course, nothing in this detracts from the fact that the State ought to remain a confessionally Catholic State.
In his address to Italian Catholic jurors, "Ci Riesce", Pope Pius XII said,
Moreover, God has not given even to human authority such an absolute and universal command in matters of faith and morality. Such a command is unknown to the common convictions of mankind, to Christian conscience, to the sources of Revelation and to the practice of the Church. To omit here other Scriptural texts which are adduced in support of this argument, Christ in the parable of the cockle gives the following advice: let the cockle grow in the field of the world together with the good seed in view of the harvest (cf. <Matt.> 13:24-30). The duty of repressing moral and religious error cannot therefore be an ultimate norm of action. It must be subordinate to higher and more general norms, which in some circumstances permit, and even perhaps seem to indicate as the better policy, toleration of error in order to promote a greater good.
Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above. First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.
The same holds true for other issues. The most important thing, really, is that since the Council itself stated it intended to define nothing new whatsoever, it can pretty much be ignored by those who know their Faith.