I believe that there are many lost vocations ... all due to the Vatican II wreckage, another facet of this chastisement. Even if you're a Traditional Catholic, and you might be drawn to the priesthood or religious life, before Vatican II there were so many choices and varieties in which those vocations could be lived out ... where there was something suitable for just about every temperament. I know, for instance, that while I was at STAS, at Winona, I often felt (and sometimes openly remarked) that I wished there were a vocation to be a seminarian. I didn't really feel drawn to SSPX concept of the priesthood, which was more a combination of secular / diocesan priest with a lot of emphasis on travel. I would have truly loved being a seminary professor and then on the weekends hitting the mission circuit. But it's not like one had a choice. You did whatever your superiors told you, and sometimes if you weren't compliant enough, they'd send you to live in a hut in Zimbabwe. i do suspect that precisely that may have contributed to the priest who recently cracked and molested his niece. Something like that could break a man down psychologically if he wasn't suited for it. But the SSPX literally doesn't give a crap, and they've probably wrecked a lot of priests that way, forcing them on assignments that they were not suited for. Nobody ever forced someone to be a missionary before Vatican II. It was considered a separate calling. SSPX abuse the notion of "obedience" very badly to feel as if they can yank people around on puppet strings and that they had to just grin and bear it out of obedience ... regardless of the effect it would have on you.
Now, there were other options out there, I suppose, but I wasn't really familiar with them, and with a house here or a house there around the world, I didn't really have the money or the luxury of time to say, "hey, maybe I'll go try the Redemptorists" or the Benedictines or the Dominicans, etc. Also, every house's implementation of the order's vision could differ, according to the character and philosophy of the local superior. Back before V2, you might try one Benedictine abbey and hate it, but try another one and absolutely love it. Thus, for example, I thought I might be drawn to the Benedictines also, so I did try Fr. Leonard Giardina's abbey for a few days, but something seemed off about it and I did not like it there at all, but it's possible that I may have liked it at Silver City. I don't think I'm as suited for Benedictines, perhaps either a Redemptorist or a Dominican. But then, what was I supposed to do, fly overseas to give it a shot for a week or two only to decide that I didn't care for it?
SSPX did have a rather arrogant attitude about vocations, where if you weren't suited to the SSPX, you had no vocation. There was never a thought for, "I don't think you're a fit for SSPX, but I think you might make a good Dominican." When they decided a seminarian wasn't a fit for SSPX, they decided that he wasn't a fit for the priesthood in general. That's not always the case. But I knew of no one who had ever been dismissed from SSPX who was told that they might fit in with some other group.
Another aspect that bothered me is that as a religious you take vows of obedience, and then what if your particular house goes in a different direction. Let's say I had gone over to the Transalpine Redemptorists there, and then they ended up selling out, or was part of those groups that went FSSP, etc.? I just felt the situation in the Church was too unstable to be compatible with a vocation like that where you generally had to be committed "for the long haul".
It's a mess out there, and I do believe that the devil has destroyed myriad vocations, and that this is part of God's chastisement.