Can you summarize? A lot of people (myself included) much prefer an article, which I can read quickly, skim, etc. to a video which pretty much has to be watched 1:1 (unless it's on a platform which allows you to speed up the playback, and even then -- who wants to hear commentary from a chipmunk?)

Is he again' it?

He never actually answers the question clearly imo. I wish he would have answered the question first, then referenced theologians' teachings to support that answer, but for most of the talk, what he does is give a lot of different scenarios that may or may not apply and basically ends up leaving the morality of taking the vaccine open.  

Through it all, I'm getting that Fr. Jenkins is saying it is *not* sinful to take the vaccine - depending on whether or not you need it to save your life or do your job, or to be more precise, he would take it if needed in order for him to perform his duties as a priest.

He focuses on how taking the vaccine does *not* mean we are complicit in the sin of abortion, but he does so by referencing different theological examples which, imo, do not clearly apply, or, depending on one's views it's perhaps better said, examples which clearly do not apply. He's usually pretty clear when it comes to other subjects, but he makes no sense to me on this matter. It's almost as if he is focusing on an abortion almost as a one time event used to make a vaccine, not an industry.  

36:40-36:50 He would take it
40:40-41:10 We are not complicit

See, it was not clear to me. I personally do not think many of the scenarios applied, but some could have - the scenarios were  all subjective - imo.  

To answer the matter, this is how I wish the interview went:
Q. Father, is it a sin to take a vaccine in which cells of murdered infants are in the vaccine?
A. Yes, and here's why... / or No, and here's why... / or Maybe and here's why....

But overall, he seems to divorce the taking of the vaccine, with any complicity or moral implications, but does so based on personal needs and society's habits.

He said something like this - - "Buying gas from Shell Oil is not a sin because we need the product, it is not our fault Shell Oil uses some of our money to help fund Planned Parenthood....but if no one bought from Shell Oil...."

And that's where he leaves it, basically saying it's no sin to buy gas from Shell Oil, which I can agree with, but for me, I cannot wholly tie that scenario to the vaccine issue. Using his scenarios to exemplify the vaccine issue can be like a brain teaser if you let it - again, that's just imo. 

Who cares what he has to say?  His grasp of moral theology is little better than that of my dogs.  He (and his buddies at the SSPV) has habitually pursued a course of unjustified refusal of the Sacraments to people who disagree with him about disputable and disputed matters, ironically making himself a public sinner because of his sinful treatment of others.

As to the vaccine, unless you are brain-dead, it should be crystal clear that willfully accepting it would rank among the worst decisions of your life.  One need not consult ignoramuses like Jenkins (or any other poorly trained priest of Traddieland, none of whom actually holds any office whatsoever) to know The Vaxx is BAD NEWS.

It is a sin to knowingly put extremely poisonous trash into your bloodstream, period, or to allow it to be put into the bodies of those for whom you are responsible.  One cannot willingly commit a venial sin, even if doing so would save all of creation.  

I know why you posted the video; you know why I responded as I did. Godspeed.