Ah yes, casti connubii, the document that introduced two-ends theology into the church wreaking never before seen havoc. I know it well. And, I reject two ends theology.
No, you don't know it well, since there is no "two ends" theology in Casti Connubii. If you're thinking of the "two meanings" of Humanae Vitae (the procreative meaning and the unitive meaning), that personalist language didn't appear until after Vatican II.
Casti Connubii follows the outline of St. Augustine who taught that there are 3 bonae (goods) of marriage.
1. Procreation and education of children.
2. Mutual support of the spouses
3. Permanence
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm
Casti Connubii
10. Now when We come to explain, Venerable Brethren, what are the blessings that God has attached to true matrimony, and how great they are, there occur to Us the words of that illustrious Doctor of the Church whom We commemorated recently in Our Encyclical Ad salutem on the occasion of the fifteenth centenary of his death:
“These,” says St. Augustine, “are all the blessings of matrimony on account of which matrimony itself is a blessing; offspring, conjugal faith and the sacrament.”
And how under these three heads is contained a splendid summary of the whole doctrine of Christian marriage, the holy Doctor himself expressly declares when he said:
“By conjugal faith it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or woman;
with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere;
finally, in its sacramental aspect that the marriage bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring.
This we regard as the law of marriage by which the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained.”
The whole point of introducing a language of "secondary ends" is to one, inculcate couples with a dualism, an two reverse "ends" that are in fact not even ends.
Their intention is to reverse the three goods of matrimony on all three accounts, hence my "two ends"(one end for each).
(#50 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.
In my opinion, these "secondary ends" are novel language(step one modernist modus) and an open door to replace and ultimately pervert the three goods taught by the council of Florence. You would be better served to reference the council as opposed to what you listed by St. Augustine.
DZ 702 Council of Florence - "Moreover there is allotted a threefold good on the part of matrimony. First, the progeny is to be accepted and brought up in the worship of God. Second, there is faith which one of the spouses ought to keep for the other. Third, there is the indivisibility of marriage, because it signifies the indivisible union of Christ and the church."
In contrast to accepting progeny, they prefer the "quieting of concupiscence". The good is not another child, the "good" is that the fires of passion can be calmed. If this is not the direct contrast, being that the document does speak of a proper primary end, then the "quieting of concupiscence" truly becomes the odd man out, sticking out like a sore thumb. This would not surprise me, as it, by way of NFP, is the bloody knife in all of these regards.
In contrast to faith, they prefer the cultivating of "mutual love".
In contrast to the indivisibility of marriage, they prefer "mutual aid".
This same council decreed Dz 695 that "through matrimony" the church is "corporeally increased". Look it up, there is no confusion. That is the one end of matrimony. Because, if you look at the three goods, only one of those should result in corporal increase. And, that one end is "the accepting of progeny".
"Faith without works is dead". Just as there remains faith, hope, and charity. "The greatest of these is charity".
The matrimonial good of "faith" shouldn't be categorized as a corporal increase, and therefore an end, because marriage is invalid between catholic and non catholic. We don't believe as those loose modern women do whose intention when fornicating with beastly men like for example hunter biden is based on a belief that it will "save him".
The matrimonial good of "indivisibility" shouldn't be categorized as a corporal increase, and therefore an end, because marriage is a "sacrament". Man seduced by a woman does not become her temporal "slave" until she eternally decides to "put him to death no differently than one might put to death a horse" - Louis de montfort. And, this De Montfort considered a duty/obligation respective of such a woman's exalted dignity(and Christulsa doesn't believe me).
This is what happens when you allow mixed marriages in the church(pre vatican 2). This is what happens when you place burdens on women that you yourself are unwilling to help lift(pre vatican 2). This is what happens when Christ is not King. This is what happens when means become ends. Ends become means.
