Am I the only one who sees nothing upon opening this thread?

ETA: Well, now I see this post.  But there is no OP.

I saw a double post, and I deleted one of them.  I don't know exactly what happened.

Me neither. Sigh.  Maybe the 3rd time will be the charm here.  I expect that my original original-posting (7:06 pm), albeit with tweaks, will now follow:
- - - - - -
Early in, or near the middle, of the topic "Sedevacantists and SSPX Seminaries" (substantively neglected since 2011), I read:

I am not so sure that traditional Catholics, especially sedevacantists, can insist that all their priests attend seminary anymore.  It may be time for the lay faithful to be open to accepting priests who privately study with another priest for a number of years and who study under the guidance of a traditional bishop for a period of time before ordination.

It's fascinating that no one in that topic ever mentioned a prospective seminarian's confidence in avoiding the Lavender Mafia that's infiltrated the Novus Ordo to such a devastating degree.  If there are no seminaries in one's home country or region that inspire reasonable confidence that unnaturally immoral  behavior is not a problem, then an apprenticeship model ought to be seriously considered as an alternative to seminaries.

It's a personal issue for me: In the decade after Vatican II, it became clear that my home-parish pastor was trying to encourage me to consider the priesthood, altho' trying to keep the encouragement somewhat subtle.  For the record: I never had any reason to believe that there was anything improper about it.

[Caution: The remainder of this posting is not quite G-rated.]

So the widespread scandal that's surfaced in the decades since then has often made me wonder: Had I applied and been accepted to a U.S. seminary, would I have found myself mired in an unholy nest of the Lavender Mob that emerged from the closet after Vatican II?  Florida has at least one (arch)diocesan seminary that's reportedly aggressively lavender: "a kind of gαy Hogwarts with palm trees", as a N.Y.C.-based on-line publication described it.  Would I have found myself libeled or slandered by them if I made an emergency exit?  Or tried to publicly explain why I'd exited?

For the sake of the sanity of every traditional heterosɛҳuąƖ seminarian, it seems to me that it'd be crucial to limit his choices to whichever orders and seminaries had been demonstrated effective at screening out or summarily removing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ faculty, staff, and seminarians.  I believe that seminaries owe that to their heterosɛҳuąƖ seminarians who have agreed to make the great personal--especially romantic--sacrifice that's represented by a future vow of chastity.  Compared to enduring an oppressively unnatural immoral environment, the issues of sedevacantism vs. recognition vs. papolatry are merely matters of theology and philosophy.

Way back when I was the right age for entrance to a seminary, I had not even the faintest clue that the now systemic problem even existed.  So it is that nowadays I repeatedly thank God that I never truly believed I had the vocation.   Now isn't that a fine kettle of fish!

Modern prospective seminarians should be thankful that the Internet makes it much harder to keep a lid on scandal.  I believe St. Augustine would've welcomed that aspect of its technological development:

    "It is better that the truth be known than that scandal be covered up."