CathInfo.com

.
Interview with the author:
https://youtu.be/9PDvhKyUu2Y?t=54
.
.
https://youtu.be/9PDvhKyUu2Y?t=2801
.
^ “The vaccines that are made in aborted fetal cells can’t be completely …all the cell debris can’t be completely purified out of those vaccine preparations, so when you’re getting vaccinated for chicken pox, you’re also receiving proteins & DNA that was originally in those aborted fetal cells. So you’re getting DNA from another human being whose cells have been growing in a laboratory since the 1970s, so who knows what kind of mutations are growing in there.  ‘Cause they had to mutate it to grow in the laboratory in the first place. This DNA is getting injected into your body.”


https://youtu.be/9PDvhKyUu2Y?t=2886

^ “The chicken pox vaccine has more aborted fetal DNA in it than it has active ingredient for the chicken pox.”  

Thanks for this!  I'm not halfway through yet but she already has said that the idea that the vaccines are from one abortion in the early 70s is a lie.  These vaccines are being developed with many aborted babies.

Fr’s Wolf and Copenhagen seem to be saying forget about the remote material, because anyone taking the vaccine receives stolen property (and in willing the benefit, they will the ongoing sin).

That would make cooperation formal, and jettison the whole remote material line of argument from the conversation.

Ok, even if the cooperation is formal, it means you are cooperating with stealing cells, not abortion.  If some mad scientist drugged me and stole my kidney, that's not murder.  If he stole my kidney and THEN killed me, then murder is a second sin, on top of stealing my kidney.
.
If the fetal cells have to be taken from a live baby, then how is murder part of this discussion?  Does the taking of cells kill the child?  Or is it survivable?  If it's survivable, then one could argue that the taking of cells is separate from the abortion.  Even if it's done by the same doctor, these are 2 different acts.
.
Example:  A thief goes into a bank and shoots the teller in the foot, so that she'll open the vault and let him take $.  The thief gets the money and before he leaves, he decides to shoot her dead, just for fun.  The thief's buddies that take part in the stolen $ are (arguably) not guilty for the murder because it wasn't essential to the robbery.  His buddies are only guilty for taking part in the theft.  The murder was the sole decision of the thief.

Ok, even if the cooperation is formal, it means you are cooperating with stealing cells, not abortion.  If some mad scientist drugged me and stole my kidney, that's not murder.  If he stole my kidney and THEN killed me, then murder is a second sin, on top of stealing my kidney.
.
If the fetal cells have to be taken from a live baby, then how is murder part of this discussion?  Does the taking of cells kill the child?  Or is it survivable?  If it's survivable, then one could argue that the taking of cells is separate from the abortion.  Even if it's done by the same doctor, these are 2 different acts.
.
Example:  A thief goes into a bank and shoots the teller in the foot, so that she'll open the vault and let him take $.  The thief gets the money and before he leaves, he decides to shoot her dead, just for fun.  The thief's buddies that take part in the stolen $ are (arguably) not guilty for the murder because it wasn't essential to the robbery.  His buddies are only guilty for taking part in the theft.  The murder was the sole decision of the thief.

The vaccine is predicated upon murder (not removing a kidney while you were drugged).

Its not the same thing:

If I steal money from an old lady, then give it to my wife before I go to jail, and she knows how I got the money, but decides to keep it and benefit from it anyway, then her consent to my crime is formal, and she shares in my sin (i.e., theft).

More to the point:

If I kill an old lady in order to steal her money, then give it to my wife before I go to jail, and she knows how I got the money, but decides to keep it and benefit from it anyway, then her consent to my crime (i.e., theft AND murder) is formal, and she shares in my sins.

Is this not correct?

In any case, if you would concede the cooperation in evil is formal, then every manual on moral theology will tell you it is NEVER permissible to cooperate in it.

That's why the SSPX will have to trump this argument (of Fr's Copenhagen and Wolfe), or reverse their position.