Although I didn't work directly in a seminary or forone, I was for years the musician of the permanent diaconate formation program, housed in the same complex. I'm always a bit skeptical of these claims. Yes I've read "Goodbye Good Men." But my experiece spending a lot of time in a major seminary beginning in 2003 doesn't bear these stories out. In my experience, at most some faculty would roll their eyes and maybe express some disbelief that these guys would want to go "backwards." But I certainly never saw anyone on the verge of being kicked out for it. And recently I'm told the seminarians are chanting the Marian antiphon in latin each night communally.

This commentary from 1998 names some major seminaries that offered little Latin and required none: http://www.crisismagazine.com/1998/americas-seminaries-a-house-built-on-sand

Some do rather better: the pre-theology program at Mount St. Mary's in Emmitsburg requires two semesters of Latin and of Greek; St John's in Boston cites two semesters of Latin in their pre-theology program and offers two elective courses beyond that (and students also have access to Boston College a block away). St Charles Seminary in Philly requires four semesters of Latin in their college program; Chicago doesn't seem to have a requirement, alas. The STB program at Catholic U. requires a reading knowledge of Latin for admission.

A priest once told me that he went along to get along while in seminary. After ordination, he said he had greater freedom to pursue his interests in the EF.

What Adam said.

And usually when I do hear of these guys having problems, it's not JUST because of their interest in the EF; it's because of their propensity to challenge professors at every turn, their attempts to "organize" resistance when they deem something to be less than orthodox, and it's because they are viewed as "rigid," "obsessed with rules and regulations," etc.

Many will say that these labels are simply "code" for being traditional or orthodox, but I'm not so sure. Some "traditional" Catholics can be quite black and white in their thinking, and that is not a great trait in a priest.

A now retired bishop once said in an interview "When I was first ordained, I was very sure of a lot of things. Today, after x years as a priest and x years as a bishop, I find myself with more questions than answers."

I greatly appreciate this conversation. I bring it up because I personally know a young man in seminary who is on edge all the time. When he calls his mother he is usually at a whisper if he wants to talk about anything in regards to what's being taught, out of fear of being heard and reported. He is very traditional in thinking but this seminary is where our bishop sent him. It is sad. He sneaks out to study Latin because he desires to learn everything he can. He's been told, as all the seminarians there have been, that if they choose to pursue extra learning (latin, traditions, etc) they will no longer be seminarians there which will possibly ruin their chances of every being ordained a priest. This young man told his mother, who told her prayer group so they could all be praying extra for him and for those seminarians there. She told him that she asked her prayer group to pray for him and he is now worried that the seminary will find out somehow and he will be asked to leave. He doesn't even want his fellow seminarians to know he's learning latin because he is starting to feel as if he can't trust them. This might make him sound a little paranoid but he is a very level headed young man, very faithful, patient, humble. I've been curious what others - you all - know or have experienced about these things.
It's been mentioned that this kind of attitude in seminaries is getting to be a minority. What a blessing!
As for our bishop sending some seminarians to this place, he hadn't been for a number of years because of its liberal stance but things had been getting better - more grounded teachers, ideals, etc and so, apparently, feels it is 'safe' to send young men there again.

The popular blogger Fr. Zuhlsdorf occasionally comments on the e-mails he gets from seminarians in such institutions, and always gives the same advice, which he had to follow as a seminarian, too: be patient and compliant, lay low, don't stick out, and put up with whatever foolishness is imposed on you, so that you can be ordained. You can learn the traditional liturgy later.

I have no information to corroborate or contradict anything that was said above. Whether it is true or not, this type of stuff is certainly grist for another potential pot boiler by the ilk of Dan Brown.

Also, what is the psychological effect upon an individual who has to sublimate his innermost thoughts during this very important period of discernment and formation. This can’t be healthy.

These are sad, even loathesome, tales about seminarians at (Catholic, yet!) seminaries being persecuted for wanting to know, of all things, Latin! It really illustrates just how nastily illiberal 'liberals' are, doesn't it!?

The Roman church, organizationally, has especially prized docility in its clergy and religious towards their immediate superiors (though religious orders with different charisms might make a greater allowance for less docility). People who betray a lack of docility of this type, even with natural tendencies towards frankness, have historically (and this long predates Vatican II) not been favored. It is unnatural and dysfunctional, but the institutional preference is immemorial in its roots.