Priest is too intense?

This Padre Peregrino has come up in two separate threads lately. Somebody posted another article by him recently where he was complaining about how the French Revolution was allegedly taught in Catholic schools (which did not jive with my memory of how I was taught it in Catholic school) and saying he prayed every day to be a martyr.

“Padre Peregrino” is actually Fr. David Nix, a priest who has had a lot of conflicts with his diocese/ bishop since being ordained. Here is one of the more recent situations:

Regarding his list of so-called “mortal” sins, first of all a mortal sin must have 1) grave matter, 2) full knowledge and 3) willful intent, so since he can’t just assume everybody has 2) and 3), the most he could say is “these are grave sins”.

Second, while some of the stuff on his list such as masturbation and fornication are understood to be grave matter, he is making some pretty sweeping statements with respect to “leggings/ short shorts” (leggings for example might be fine if worn under a skirt, worn by modern dancers, worn as gym wear, etc.), and his discussions of marital acts and unnecessary Sunday work are not strictly in accord with the teachings of the Church.

This priest is like Fr. Ripperger, he has some strong opinions on certain things above and beyond what the Church teaches. Rather than read his stuff, you should read the Catechism, and if you still have a question, you should talk with your own priest. I would not trust Fr. Nix as a reliable source.

I see by his bio he is currently working on his rule to become a diocesan hermit, and that might be better suited to his personality than being a diocesan priest. Yes, he’s “intense”.


It really depends on the type of leggings, the shape of the person in the leggings, as well as the environment where they are wearing the leggings. Since I was young in the 80s and also took dance classes, I saw all kinds of leggings and all kinds of male and female bodies wearing them, in all kinds of environments and with all kinds of other clothing (the tunics that hung down past the posterior for example), and it’s impossible from my perspective to make a blanket statement about all leggings.

1 Like

I remember reading this before about him. Yes the life of a hermit Priest might be best for him.


Sounds kind of like Padre Pio without the stigmata to me. Padre Pio had very strict standards about how women had to be dressed, for him to hear their confessions. (But if it was behind a screen and he didn’t see them, how did he know? Ability to read hearts?)

I hope nobody will read this as disrespect towards Padre Pio. He’s one of my favorite saints. I like to think that priests such as him, as well as Fr Ripperger and Fr Nix, “shake us out of our comfort zone” and make us ask whether our life of faith is everything it could be.


I can’t see any of the Mortal sins there that he’s wrong about and don’t think he’s over the top at all. He’s just following the 10 commandments. I didn’t get a chance to read the rest of the article as it’s too small on my phone but I will do.

I agree that leggings are not appropriate wear by themselves and if worn should at least be covered by a dress. In my opinion this is one of the fashion items Our Lady mentioned that would offend Our Lord. How can it not? You have His beautiful children, particularly women walking around in these things which less face it leave nothing to the imagination…so practically naked. Where is modesty? It’s not covered. To me leggings are underwear. I think when we dress we should imagine meeting Mary or Jesus for coffee and would we feel comfortable… hmmm Same goes for short shorts and skirts etc. in my opinion.


Why are we fixating on the priest’s judgment of leggings? This was merely one item of 15.


Well, on the leggings issue, he specifically says “…letting your LITTLE GIRLS wear leggings “ will lead you to hell. Considering that the Church won’t even formally say that Hitler is in Hell, the idea of leggings on little girls doing that does seem a bit extreme.

I think the larger issue with the article is the idea that a penitent should disagree with the confessor if the priest were to say that X wasn’t a sin. Presumably the priest knows more about the particular confessed circumstances of something, and while objective grave matter might be present, the judgment as to sinfulness lies with the confessor— not the penitent, and not someone who obsesses about leggings on little girls.


I too thought he might be wanting to imitate Padre Pio. As we have already had many discussions about Padre Pio and women’s clothing (and he also had strict standards for men’s clothing from what I’ve read) on here already, I will refrain from starting another one.

In any event, I hope he is able to work it out with his Archdiocese and continue to serve as a priest in some capacity, whether he becomes a hermit or is assigned to a traditional church.

1 Like

Because it was the most out-there one. A number of the other things he listed actually are sins, some of them are considered grave matter.

1 Like

His statements on acts not permitted in marriage are not strictly correct. He seems to be saying such acts are never permitted at all, when actually they may be permissible as foreplay if the man finishes in the normal manner. We have had this discussion on several other threads recently. His insistence that the statements of two saints somehow trump the teaching of the Church is also incorrect and troublesome. What’s next, St. Bridget and her statements about marital sex being immoral in and of itself?

A number of posters on here also addressed the issue of leggings in appropriate settings, leggings on your children (for whom they are often a normal item of clothing) etc.

Also, as we have discussed, he can’t state across the board that all these sins are “mortal” when, even if the sin is grave matter, there are two other elements required for a mortal sin and they must be evaluated in each individual case.


Not to be crude, but I was mulling over these responses this morning, and I think society has long since figured out that women have lower extremities, that those lower extremities terminate at some point (in both directions), and that wearing a garment that indicates this, no longer sends men into paroxysms of lust and impurity — if indeed it ever did.

As for leggings, If I were a woman, I would not wear them without some sort of skirt-like covering, but I am not prepared to read other people into mortal sin, if they see the matter differently.

“Given the three conditions” — I am almost inspired to create an acronym, “GT3C”, to save time having to write it out. Previous, properly catechized generations just knew this, though granted, the “grave matter” part was the only thing a lot of people heard.


I am not guilty of wearing leggings, as that would definitely be a sin against humanity, maybe not God, but certainly humanity.

However based on the list, I certainly would have sinned by his standards by moving about a ton and a half of bricks on Sunday.

My wife and son also took part in this, so my defense is that I was spending time with my family. I actually enjoy doing manual labor, it is a great stress reliever and gives me time to think free from distractions.

Do I feel like I sinned by doing what I did. Nope. Will I confess it? Nope.


Ah yes. The article I read that probably brought on my scrupulosity :joy::joy: now I realize its ridiculous

1 Like

As in wearing them while working out? Not a mortal sin

I think this shows a little bit of a problem with labeling so many things “mortal sins”. Some of these things on the list ARE mortal sins (:: cough cough abortion cough cough ::slight_smile: and comparing wearing leggings to getting an abortion really cheapens the horror that is abortion.


What about men who wear “revealing” clothing made out of lycra for cycling, swimming, weight lifting, rowing etc. Are they sinning too?

1 Like

And/or everyone else.

:smile: :grin: :laughing: :sweat_smile: :joy: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Noted. I guess this is why I should read the whole article before commenting. Thank you

What I found illuminating was the open letter by the Archbishop.

This priest has some issues, and they are hardly insignificant; if his behavior is as noted in the letter, one would think that should have been picked up on while he was in seminary.

There is an obvious difference between behavior and recitation of moral theology, but his recitation of moral theology is lacking, and not just in a minor nuanced way. However, with the allegations made as to behavior, it would be of no surprise to me at all if his grasp of moral theology might be skewed also.

I suspect we all have a bit of a tendency to read quickly and not necessarily thoroughly, so this is not intended as criticism, but rather some further observations.

1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit