Wrong.
Pius XI is clearly referring to Continence as a means of regulating birth. That's precisely why he mentions this in the very sentence in which he is referring to methods of regulating offspring. As he say, anything that deliberately frustrates the marriage act (such as condoms) is forbidden - but virtuous continence, as a method of regulating offspring, is allowed. Again, the whole point of his statement is to draw the line between what is permitted in the regulation of offspring, and what is forbidden.

Keep trying to justify your own conscience with false arguments.

You continue to ignore the notion of VIRTUOUS continence.  And you ignore the passages in Casti Conubii that condemn the subordination of ends.

This thread turned from Witnesses to birth control. 

1. The Dimonds do not claim to be infallible (that I know of). All of their prophecy stuff could be wrong and they could still be right on BOD, Outside the Church, NFP and Sede-vacantism. I have not read any credible refutation on their positions on these issues of faith. In fact, they don't have opinions on these issues, they just quote cannon law, the popes and the saints. They are spot-on and any refutation always ends up being lame and rather easy to poke (massive) holes in. 

2. And, what if the Dimonds really ARE the Witnesses? Or, what if they actually do say they are (which I have yet to see in any of this supposed "expose"). How does that invalidate all of the dogma and doctrine they have unearthed for the rest of us? This entire point is irrelevant to the questions of faith which are the most urgent in our day. I am not going to save or lose my immortal soul on the question as to whether the Dimonds are the Witnesses. But, I WILL save or lose my soul on the question of possessing the true faith. So for that, THANK YOU DIMOND BROTHERS! If it weren't for them, my whole family would still be "home alone." 

3. It appears to me that people don't LIKE the Dimonds personally, not that the Dimonds are preaching error in the matters of faith or morals. If they are preaching error, I sure can't find any (and no one else I have read can either). 

And, what if the Dimonds really ARE the Witnesses? 

They are not the witnesses for 2 important reasons.

1.  They claimed that JPII was the anti-christ which means that they should've been killed and resurrected during his papacy.  That obviously didn't happen.  

2.  Most of the Church Fathers say that the witnesses are Enoch and Elijah.

Yeah I really don't understand how they still to this day say JPII was the anti-Christ even though he's dead and gone. Doesn't the anti-Christ have to be alive for the Second Coming?

The anti-Christ is also to be killed by the breathe of Our Lords mouth, and slowly dying of Parkinson’s sounds like it might be a smidge less dramatic and explosive as the former mentioned event ... explain that, Dimonds.