I’d grant the Vatican’s statement is a little open ended, but I certainly wouldn’t call it conditional. Unlike the Archdiocese, the Vatican does not say it is problematic to accept a vaccine using fetal material if an alternative is “available” (whatever that means). The #1 point you pasted says the moral culpability is not at all the same for someone who has no say in what goes into the thing.
If the stances are really the same, you have to ask why the Archdiocese did not reference the Vatican’s views or simply defer to them generally. Especially why they would make the statement at a time when literally the only vaccine “choice” to be made almost anywhere is accepting or rejecting the one you are offered when you are offered it.
The messaging at best is sloppy, but more than anything seems aimed at discouraging folks from getting the J&J vaccine at a time when that means not getting vaccinated at all for a lot of people.
It is absolutely 100% conditional. "When x isn't available, y is OK" is conditional permissibility. Stated in the logical reverse: "y is ok if x isn't available."
Again - here's the statement: "When ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available [...] it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses..."
W/r/t the purpose - The archdiocese is specifically referencing the JNJ vaccine, which uses fetal tissue in manufacturing, and comparing it to moderna/pfizer, which used fetal tissue in testing. On my reading, the Vatican statement I posted didn't distinguish between the use in testing/manufacturing -- hence the value of the Archdiocese's statement (which is effectively "if faced with the decision, use in testing isn't as bad as use in manufacturing").
You can call the whole thing stupid and irrelevant if you want, and that's fine with me if you see it that way. But the archdiocese's charge doesn't contradict anything the Vatican says. And neither the archdiocese, nor the Vatican are telling people that they can't get the JNJ vaccine. They are each saying that if less morally contentious solutions are available, opt for those instead. Which, as a general proposition, is about as close to a categorical imperative as there is.