Here is how the new member "Canis" understood Fr. Scott's argument:

"Further, it is irrelevant that the original fetal cells of the aborted child are or are not currently present in the cell line. Those cells were the initial cause of the cell line (in all four senses of causality); what happens subsequently is irrelevant insofar as we are talking about the causal chain as a whole. Many people here have been confusing per se vs. per accidens causality. In the case of a cell line, we have a per accidens chain, but we must remember that every per accidens chain presupposes a per se causal chain. This is how I read Fr. Scott's original article arguing that using vaccines derived in any way from aborted fetal cells is gravely immoral because there is a direct line of causality, that is, the entire chronological development of the cell line ultimately depends on the initial fetal cells. I think arguing this way is a bit ambiguous, but I think it is trying to overcome the objection that the original cells are no longer present [Not a fact anyway, however -SJ] . The ambiguity of arguing like this also shows itself in the somewhat convoluted thought experiments given earlier to show how cooperation in some evil act would be formal vs. material."

https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/?area=showposts;u=6632

I'm betting my last dollar that Canis is a Dominican priest.  He said his piece and never came back.  Nor did he tangle with anyone.

He also mentioned that the morality of this issue can only be determined by double effect analysis (an analysis Don Curzio Nitoglia proved beyond any dispute fails in 3 of 4 criteria).

Bumped for Pax regarding the (false) cloning/no more fetal cells lie.

Others have shown the replication process does NOT eliminate the fetal cells from HEL293.

Canis is saying that issue is irrelevant to the morality anyway.

Fr Scott wrote in 2000: "Here one could argue that the person who seeks the vaccination does not will the abortion, but simply uses the cells that are obtained as a consequence. However, the vaccine is not just an indirect effect of the abortion. There is in fact a direct line of causality, from the abortion, to the available fetal cells to the development of the vaccine, to the immunization. Therefore, the immunization is a direct consequence of the abortion, and not just an indirect effect. Consequently, it would be immoral to use a vaccine that one knew was developed in fetal cells, no matter how great the advantage to be procured." https://web.archive.org/web/20040623125417/http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__morality.htm#vaccinationfromabortions

He seems to be rejecting the argument "that the person who seeks the vaccination does not will the abortion," which would mean that the person does will the abortion which would be formal cooperation, no?

He never comes out and says that though.  Also, how does a person will an abortion after the fact?

He who wills the ends, wills the means:

If I buy you a car with money I robbed from the bank, and you accept, you implicitly consent to the bank robbery, since you willingly benefit from it.

Continuing with Fr. Scott’s analysis:

If you would say no, I object to the bank robbery, but I need/want that car (a scenario Fr. Scott rejects as disingenuous), then we are in the realm -for the sake of argument- of the indirect voluntary act, and it must pass the test for double effect (which Don Nitoglia shows fails in at least 3 of 4 criteria).

So does Fr Scott believe that is formal cooperation?   Because, again, he never says (said) that and given that "formal cooperation" is a moral theology term, I would think he would use it if that is what he means (meant).

The child is conceived out of a sɛҳuąƖ act (which is inherently good), not a fornication.

The sɛҳuąƖ act is only holy in matrimony.  Outside of marriage, it is unholy, sinful, against the natural law and evil.  The same anti-natural law evil as murder/abortion.  Both are against the natural law.  Both are evil.  There may be degrees of evil, when comparing the 2, but morally speaking, they are both equally wrong, in the same class.
.
A fornication is against the natural law; it is anti-nature.  It is a corruption of life.
.
An abortion is against the natural law; it is anti-nature.  It is a corruption of life.
.
Murder (i.e abortion) is worse than abandonment (i.e. fornication) but both sins are of the same kind.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/2oA6ti9E8LBQ/

Father Ripperger on the vaccines. I haven't finished watching it yet.

 

25 minutes in, and Fr R keeps referring to "taking from the fetus" as a moral wrong, but the fetus is already dead.  Isn't the taking of life the ultimate wrong?  I don't understand how you can kill someone AND take something else from them too?  This doesn't make sense to me.

The fetus is not necessarily already dead.
I haven't watched the video but there is the situation where they abort a child (intentionally - extract a living child) so as to have a living source of cells.)