Brooklyn Diocese Knew of Abuse Allegations Decades Before Barring Priest From Ministry, Files Show
Diocese of Brooklyn personnel files indicate leaders were aware of sexual abuse allegations against Father Patrick Sexton for many years. The knowledge of repeated sexual misconduct allegations predated the official barring of Sexton from ministry. The information comes from recently unsealed personnel files related to the priest.
15 days ago
Recently unsealed personnel files from the Diocese of Brooklyn reveal that leaders knew of sexual abuse allegations against priest Patrick Sexton for decades before formally barring him from ministry in 2004.1 2
New York Supreme Court Judge Joanne Quiñones ordered the release in January 2026, tied to a lawsuit under the Child Victims Act.1 2
In 1979, Monsignor Anthony Bevilacqua documented Sexton's admission to photographing naked boys aged 7-10 showering at Jones Beach.1 2
Sexton claimed he did not know why and thought it "not abnormal"; Bevilacqua consulted police and parents but did not recommend transfer, with further details redacted.1 2
A redacted 11-year-old boy reported in 1986 that Sexton photographed him post-shower at St. Cecilia rectory, fondled him, and tried placing the boy's hand under his underpants.1 2
The victim suffered anger and academic decline; Sexton admitted actions for pleasure but denied sexual intent, later confessing similar acts with another boy.1 2
Monsignor Otto Garcia relayed allegations to Bishop Francis Mugavero; Sexton met the bishop in 1986-1987, denying nothing but receiving encouragement to develop talents.1 2
By 1990, Sexton took sick leave, lived as a layman, yet continued occasional church organ playing; new claims surfaced into 2000.1 2
Sexton was informally removed in 1990; Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio formalized the ban in 2004 via canonical precept.1 2
Garcia's 2004 letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger detailed abuses including photos, touching, masturbation, and oral sex; Sexton was laicized by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006.1 2
Attorney Anelga Doumanian called the unsealing a "landmark" for civil accountability, arguing the diocese knew Sexton posed a risk.1 2
The diocese avoids litigation comments but apologizes to survivors, citing 2004 safeguards like training, background checks, and the U.S. bishops' Charter.1 2
Files highlight delayed action despite admissions; a trial date awaits in the ongoing suit.1 2
The release underscores court-mandated transparency for institutions amid ongoing abuse litigation.1 2
How did Catholic hierarchy handle abuse allegations before formal bans?
Before the promulgation of centralized norms like the 2001 motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela (SST), which reserved cases of sexual abuse of minors by clerics to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), the Catholic hierarchy primarily addressed such allegations through local diocesan processes rooted in canon law. These procedures emphasized preliminary investigations, caution to protect reputations, and a mix of pastoral, therapeutic, and penal approaches, often prioritizing the seal of confession and internal ecclesiastical handling over immediate civil reporting. Bishops and major superiors bore primary responsibility, conducting extra-judicial inquests or admonitions to ascertain facts discreetly before escalating to formal trials. This system evolved from the 1917 Code of Canon Law, through post-Vatican II shifts toward "pastoral attitudes," and into the 1983 Code, but it was criticized later for inconsistencies and delays.
A cornerstone of pre-SST handling was the "summaria facti cognitio" or "informatio pro informatione curiæ"—a summary, extra-judicial inquiry conducted secretly by the bishop or a delegate to verify rumors or denunciations. This was mandatory before any canonical admonition or action against a cleric, as bishops could not even issue a private warning without establishing a "reasonable basis for suspicion." Great caution was urged to avoid damaging the cleric's reputation unnecessarily; if evidence was slight or absent, records were destroyed, and no further steps taken. Witnesses or experts might be examined discreetly, but without judicial formality, akin to a coroner's inquest.
In cases of sexual misconduct linked to the sacrament of Penance—such as solicitation—the 1922 (reprinted 1962) Instruction Crimen Sollicitationis mandated a special investigation upon "denunciations," focusing on the accuser's credibility, the priest's precedents, and potential other victims. Direct testimony was rare due to the private nature of confession, so inquiries relied on indirect evidence like the priest's behavior. The process protected the seal of confession, using confidentiality to shield all parties until moral certitude was achieved. This extended analogously to "crimen pessimum" (homosexual acts among clerics), abuse of prepubescent children, and bestiality. Bishops could restrict a religious priest's transfer during the probe.
The 1917 Code recognized certain grave delicts reserved to the Holy Office, but most sexual offenses against the sixth commandment fell under local bishops' jurisdiction. The 1983 Code updated this in canon 1395 §2, punishing clerics for offenses "committed by force or threats or publicly or with a minor below the age of sixteen years" with "just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state." Trials occurred diocesan-level, with appeals to the Roman Rota; no automatic CDF involvement. Post-Vatican II (1965–1983), a "therapeutic model" often prevailed: bishops favored psychological treatment over punishment, reflecting optimism about therapy and a decentralized, pastoral emphasis on healing rather than penal processes. This sometimes overlooked recidivism risks.
By the 1990s, indult norms for the US (1994) and Ireland (1996) raised the minor's age to 18 and extended prescription to 10 years from the victim's 18th birthday, reminding bishops of local trial duties. Still, cases remained diocesan unless appealed.
Responses often began with "paternal" or "legal" canonical admonitions—preventive remedies for suspected faults. Paternal ones, based on "half-proof" or serious likelihood, involved private exhortation to amend without naming sources or threats, urging avoidance of occasions of sin. Legal admonitions required fuller proof and left a record. If unheeded, bishops could impose precautionary restrictions (e.g., limiting ministry per later canons like 1722) or proceed to judicial action, barred by five-year limitation for medicinal penalties. Permanent penalties like laicization needed full processes.
Even without guilt, superiors might issue spiritual retreats or injunctions as preservatives. The bishop's prudence determined escalation: prosecution might be withheld if more beneficial for the Church.
Pope Benedict XVI later admitted that some bishops "failed, at times grievously, to apply the long-established norms of canon law," making "serious mistakes" amid complexity and conflicting advice, undermining credibility. Priests felt "tainted by association," urging cooperation with superiors for "evangelical, just and effective" measures. Pre-SST, cooperation with civil authorities varied by country, but civil law reporting was not universally mandated; focus was internal. The 2011 CDF Circular urged guidelines aligning with SST (revised 2010: 20-year prescription from age 18, CDF derogation possible), victim assistance, accused's defense, and civil collaboration—addressing prior gaps.
Vademecum (recent) reaffirms preliminary investigations per canons 1717/1468 as the Ordinary's duty, omission now potentially delictual.
In summary, pre-formal bans, hierarchy relied on discreet local inquests, admonitions, and pastoral/penal processes under canon law, safeguarding reputations and sacraments while enabling correction. Evolving codes refined definitions and timelines, but implementation flaws—later critiqued—prompted SST's centralization for uniformity, victim care, and justice. This reflects the Church's commitment to due process amid grave delicts, balancing mercy and accountability.