They brought up a good point regarding that that made me think: we don't want soft priests looking for an easy life. Granted, I think only 2 made it through who started in the year of arrival, but still they got a good bit of hard life to toughen up all who endured the move.

There's some balance to be had, of course, where some manual labor is good.  I was referring to the fact that they barely touched upon the spiritual and academic formation there in comparison to all the emphasis on manual labor.  They don't even give a brief summary of the seminary schedule, or an overview of the curriculum, nor do you even hear much of their working on chant, etc.  In fact, the whole discussion about the Year of Spirituality made it seem like seminarians were all uncultured dumbasses coming in and had to get some courses in to catch up on their defective prior education.  More and more as I think back on the video ... I was watching it most with a view to how many people I recognized ... the more I realize how incomplete and unbalanced it was.  Now, I know for a fact that the current district superior Fr. John Fullerton was all about the manual labor but barely ever said a peep about the faith, about theology, abou the Crisis in the Church ... so it's quite possible that this emphasis comes from him.  But overall the video gives a very incomplete and unbalanced view of seminary life.  Those grueling moves took place over a few Summers but got more time in the video than the years and years of formation and instruction.

And very few drop out because of the manual labor ... which doesn't actually consume the bulk of your time there (despite the impression the video might have given).  I think some do find the regimented and highly-scheduled life difficult to adapt to, and some can't keep up with the academics, and some just don't find the priesthood a fit for their temperament and personality.  In fact, I think there's a serious problem with the SSPX cookie-cutter seminary where it prepares priests for only one flavor of vocation, that of the SSPX priests who hangs out at some priory doing one job or another, and then flies around on weekends to mission chapels.  What about those who are more contemplative?  More academic?  Some in fact might be more inclined toward manual labor and less toward academics.  Prior to Vatican II, you had about as many choices as you had different types of personalities out there and there was a fit for everyone.  For myself, my personality was a cross between academic and contemplative.  But that really wasn't much of an option at SSPX.  Every once in a while one or another seminarian transferred over to the Benedictines or something, as the only alternative, but they were often dismissed as not having a vocation, categorically, if they left because that particular life did not suit them ... whereas that's not necessarily true.  There's much that they do very poorly there.  I find it just a little odd that mine was a typical class where you started with 21 and end up with 3 ordained.  There's something wrong there, and the original 21 were for the most part very serious, devout, relatively intelligent young men, the vast majority of whom I personally felt likely had vocations to the priesthood.  There are always about 3-4 misfits that cleary don't belong there, and they're often gone by two or three weeks in and work themselves out.  But I would have expected that a proper system and proper formationw would have seen 15 of those young men through to ordination.  I knew most of those 15 young men who I felt had solid vocations well, and most were broken-hearted when they left, didn't really want to leave, but various incompatibilities between themselves and the seminary life, which were artificially interpreted as "no vocation to the priesthood" (qutie wrongly IMO) did not mean they didn't have vocations, just not to the SSPX priest lifestyle.

To Elwin's point that it was a propaganda (and likely fundraising) piece for the new building.  They're still mightily in the hole there and are probably trying to inspire new donations.

They could have done much more to depict what life was like in the seminary, and that might have inspired some, oh, vocations ... rather than donations.  In fact all the time spent on the seminarians' manual labor might in fact have deterred some vocations.  Well, if I wanted to spend 12 hours a day doing construction work, I don't need to go to seminary for that.

But that was during construction that the seminarians worked manual labor.  That don't do that NOW.   

Oh, on another point ... there was often a bit excessive / forced austerity that is not suitable for everyone, such as how they did not turn on the heat until at least November, and there were many days / weeks where (in Minnesota anyway) we were wearing coats and struggling to write notes as our hands shivered, or where the food was garbage, lacking in nutrition.  When seminarians went home, their families often remarked about how sickly and pale they appeared.  While priests should be able to adapt to some privation, different individuals take it in different doses, and some take longer to adapt than others, but a one-size-fits-all austerity like that can do a lot of harm.  "I can't take the cold of the Minnesota Winter without the heat on, so I don't have a vocation."  Really?  Father Iscara, who clearly had a vocation, and was mentioned a lot in the video, famously sometimes went on strike and would not come out of his room to teach until they turned the heat on.  So he too had no vocation?  Well, not a few seminarians were sent packing because their reponse to similar conditions was construed as lack of vocation.  What utter hogwash.  Just because you can't adjust well to shivering indoors in the cold when you're trying to focus on your studies (there can be other times for you to learn to adapt to col) ... this does not mean you could not have made a terrific priest with a heart of gold and love for souls.  St. Pius X went out of his way to make sure his seminarians were taken care of, well fed, had proper clothing, etc. ... so they could focus on their studies, and did not unilaterally impose penances on them all.  Each individual should work with his spiritual director to develop specific virtues related to austerity and self-denial, as it fits with their current state of spiritual development.  There were many such in my class that were shown the door for all the wrong reasons.  Others are show the door because they disagree, whether to the right or to the left, of the current mainstream SSPX thinking.  That too is ridicilous, but if you weren't a complete mindless yes-man, you were labeled "proud" and "disobedient" ... even though the entire raison d'etre of SSPX was rooted in disobedience to the many they claim is the Vicar of Christ.

There was imposed not only a one-size-fits-all austerity, but a one-size-fits-all austerity, a one-size-fits-all spirituality, a one-size-fits-all notion of the priesthood, a one-size-fits-all position on the Crisis ... and that was the problem, where the SSPX had a lot of hubris (which is ironically mentioned in the video about some young priests) thinking they had it all figure out and know what was best for everyone, and if that didn't match with your personality, your spirituality, and your temperament, it wasn't just that you weren't compatible with typical SSPX life, but you had "no vocation".  You could disagree with something SSPX held in all humility, but be labeled proud merely for disagreeing ... even if the "current thing" you had to assent to might vary from year to year depending on the political climate.

Sed contra -- maybe Bp W was trying to flush out any effeminate seminarians of the lavender persuasion. Everyone loved to criticize the bishop for allowing the "Society of St. John" Uruttigoity group to happen, but then you will criticize him trying to weed out the effeminate ones? Sounds like he was doing a smart thing.

Your time at the seminary was the same time as the Johnnies, right? 

Anyhow, a priest does need to be able to "deal" with involuntary penances thrown his way. If he can't deal, he wouldn't be able to make it as a priest. Again, I see the wisdom in it.