So finally we have a rebuttal of the “material cooperation” argument.

He says it is formal cooperation (Fr. Chazal and the SSPX have contradictory definitions of “formal”).

I like that observation that substance is both a form and a matter. It is the artificially sustained body piece of killed person (same DNA)  - this substance is there to make the product.
Although I am not sure how to square this (around 13:00) "a plumber makes some repairs at abortion clinic: he does not commit a sin (only material cooperation)" 

I just sent His Excellency the following email:

"Greetings Your Lordship-

I was listening to Your Lordship's sermon of Dec. 6 regarding the COVID19 abortive vaccine.  Can your Lordship confirm that the SSPX is correct in advising their faithful that there can be certain circuмstances in which the use of abortive vaccines is morally acceptable/permissible?

If so, what do you make of Fr. Scott's 2000 article concluding the contrary (or the words of those like Vigano, Burke, Schneider, et al. who, without supplying a supporting rationale, nevertheless concur that such vaccines can never be used)?"

Should I get a response, and permission to post it, I will do so.

Sean, Wondering if you heard from Bishop Williamson? I would be interested in hearing his response (if allowed to post).  Perhaps he will write about this in the next Eleison Comment.

What about telcom company setting up a phone line for an abortion place. Are they workers in sin when performing job?