That's it, exactly: persons being admitted to Seminaries who reject the teachings of the Church and persist in seeking the Priesthood. Not all, thank God, but it's the heart of the problem.
What I learned/was told/read as to the biggest challenge facing the Church from years ago forward (somewhat recognized now and being reckoned with, at least, I hope) was/is that a network, a community, so to speak, of homosexualities in the Priesthood and affiliated with Seminaries were proliferating the same interests and personality issues by whom they admitted.
Thus, a larger number of homosexuals in the Priesthood and the Priesthood itself modified to gradually reject the Church's teachings on this issue. It leads to where many Protestant groups are today and that is the slow humanistic changes in their concepts of what is holy and what is not and next thing you know, what is not holy stands where what is holy used to be.
I know this is a big issue for many of us Catholics. I'm glad about that, too.
About lesbians in religious orders, I was surprised to naively realize that that was so. It is not necessarily as predatory, perhaps, in nature as male homosexuals but it's still the same problem and issue (and challenge) and that is that some who reject the teachings of the Church are allowed to be admitted into Orders.
Lesbians in religious orders are a big problem in the US - and even worse is the fact that they were virtually officially sanctioned for a while, after nuns got into the "I Am Woman" (Womyn?) movement.
I had a friend who had been in a religious order for about 15 years and was very happy, had never seen any problems - until the superiors of the order invited some shrinks in to tell the good sisters that they were repressing themselves and they should stop that right now. They did, and my friend left after about two years of relentless propositioning, hearing the doors in the convent slamming all night, etc. Now, naturally, what is left of that convent is about three elderly nuns who are way beyond hanky-panky.
I think the reason it wasn't mentioned is that the document was dealing with priests, which of course would mean that it wouldn't relate to female religious orders. But it was (and probably still is) a problem in some areas.