Thank you Stubborn. I think I would concur with most of what you have written. I would disagree with your comments re: his comments about individual abortion vs the industry because I believe he gave other scenarios/activities where he clearly explains that we would not be complicit in "abortion"...not an abortion. Although he never says "the industry", it's clear to me that he is talking about the whole issue of abortion and anything that pertains to it. I can't remember exactly, but I think he mentions that giving our business to companies that give money to Planned Parenthood would not make us complicit in abortion (or something that effect).
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.