How is curavit being interpreted in a negative sense?

Question

In his Confessions (2.3.8), Augustine writes:

non enim et illa quae iam de medio Babylonis fugerat, sed ibat in ceteris eius tardior, mater carnis meae, sicut monuit me pudicitiam, ita curavit quod de me a viro suo audierat, iamque pestilentiosum et in posterum periculosum sentiebat cohercere termino coniugalis affectus, si resecari ad vivum non poterat.

The part I'm struggling with is the following:

ita curavit quod de me a viro suo audierat, iamque pestilentiosum et in posterum periculosum sentiebat cohercere termino coniugalis affectus

What makes sense to me is to consider cohercere to be the direct object of curavit, with the clause quod … sentiebat as the direct object of cohercere. In that case, it would mean something like:

… so she sought to curb, with the bonds of conjugal affection, what she had heard from her husband, and what she felt was an affliction and danger for the future

However, that's pretty much the opposite of how it's interpreted by almost all of the translations I consulted. Somehow they are interpreting this in a way such that she wasn't too worried about what her husband had said. For example, one translation has the following:

… she did not seriously pay heed to what her husband had told her about me, and which she felt to hold danger for the future: for she did not seek to restrain my sexual drive within the limit of the marriage bond

How is this being interpreted that way?

Answer 1

As James O'Donnell notes in his commentary, non enim should be taken with ita curavit.

I would suggest that non enim et illa means "For not even she," and everything from "quae" to "mater carnis meae" is a digressive elaboration about his mother, after which the thought resumes.