Correcto!
My Spanish isn’t that good, but I was prompted to look up the presumed original of the second sentence in 280 (the only mention in subsidiarity in the whole work), and I am fairly certain it was botched pretty badly. The Spanish, near as I can tell, is coherent and consistent with past teaching—the English is arguably neither.
There also looks to be another problem—I think that Spanish is more prone to use exaggeration to make a point—which, if read in context, is not at all confusing. Translated into English, not so good. And to use too many infinitives to communicate is not to employ standard English.
On the flip side, there are some quotations that show just how good a prose artist Aquinas was—translated into English through the Spanish he is clearer than the translator is capable of making the Pope without an intervening language.
In fairness to whomever is translating, no one has ever been called to translate Papal documents from Spanish to English before, or likely from anything other than Latin into English without a Papal proofreading. So long as everyone was operating from Latin, one knew what to expect. At least, contrary to my first thought, Reggie Foster can’t be blamed (the leading English speaking Latinist in Rome is also a Maoist).
Wonder who is in charge? Someone like Father Reese?