CathInfo.com

I spoke with a seminarian who attended the SSPX seminary in Winona in 2000, and then came back in 2006 (a few years after +Williamson left) and stayed for a few years.

The changes, hitting him all at once, were shocking. I'm surprised he stayed that long!

But he told me some very, very interesting things about seminary life in 2006.

Fr. Le Roux came up with a shorthand for the 3 virtues he wanted every seminarian to practice most of all:

THE THREE D'S
------------------
Delicacy - ???
Disinterestedness - "Whatever the superior wants, that's what I want". Complete passivity.
Dependence

Of all the virtues the SSPX American seminary could be pushing on its seminarians -- to the extent they even have a shorthand "Remember the 3 D's!" they can remind each other with -- those three "virtues" are some very curious selections for their FUTURE PRIESTS.

I need not list a bunch of better virtues for a priest: wisdom, prudence, piety, knowledge, fortitude, lack of human respect, charity, devotion to Mary, etc. You could easily add to this list.

Also, the super-virtue for SSPX seminarians today is OBEDIENCE. Therefore, logically, the Superior General (the highest target of obedience) is venerated as a living saint. His mouth always speaks the words of God.

They even created a sort of "holy card" commemorating certain Bishop Fellay meeting(s) in Rome, etc.

Isn't that going to attract the wrong kind of seminarian? Like, the lavender variety?
I'm not saying all modern SSPX seminarians are lavender. But those young men who ARE of the lavender persuasion will be attracted to this new seminary ideal. THAT is the problem.

Yes, I would definitely like to see the "delicacy" defined.

Delicate priests repulse me.

As for the "disinterestedness," it is manifest in every SSPX priest still in the SSPX:

None of them even know there is a crisis in the SSPX, and if they did, they would simply prefer wine and good cheese to exploring the causes of it.

They are convinced (without really caring one way or the other, though) that they are carrying on the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre, which was squandered by the GREC-Celier blueprint long ago.

Just for starters, Thomistic philosophy teaches that men are the ACTIVE or agent principle, while women are the passive or the receiver.
Passivity is not primarily a male virtue. Detachment from one's own will, perhaps, in preference to God's. But passivity as such? Men are supposed to be active, doing their part to bring about God's order in the world.