New York priest facing 20 years in prison on child pornography charges, federal prosecutor says
Father Jeffrey Nowak of Lackawanna, NY, has been charged with receipt and possession of child pornography, carrying a mandatory minimum of five years and a maximum of 20 years in prison. He has been on administrative leave since 2019 following allegations of inappropriate conduct with children and a seminarian’s sexual harassment claim. The FBI reopened its investigation in March 2024 and a search warrant uncovered child pornography on his electronic devices. The Diocese of Buffalo confirmed he has been on permanent leave since 2019 and will cooperate with law‑enforcement inquiries. U.S. Attorney Michael DiGiacomo said the priest hid behind a keyboard and will be held accountable for his disgraceful behavior.
3 months ago
Father Jeffrey Nowak, a priest of the Diocese of Buffalo, has been arrested and charged with receipt and possession of child pornography, offenses that carry a mandatory minimum of five years and a maximum of 20 years in federal prison. 1 2
Nowak has been on administrative leave since 2019 after a seminarian reported that the priest had sexually harassed him. 1
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of New York announced that Nowak was arrested on July 8, 2026 and charged with both receipt and possession of child pornography. The statutes impose a mandatory minimum sentence of five years and a maximum of 20 years. 1 2
A two‑year FBI investigation linked Nowak to an email address associated with child sexual abuse material; that probe was closed but reopened in March 2024. A search warrant executed at his residence on July 8 uncovered child pornography on his electronic devices. 1 2
The Diocese of Buffalo issued a statement confirming that Nowak was placed on permanent leave in 2019 and has not been allowed to function as a priest since then. The diocese said it was only recently made aware of the new allegations and will cooperate fully with law‑enforcement inquiries. 1 2
If convicted, Nowak faces a federal prison term ranging from five to 20 years, reflecting the seriousness with which the Justice Department treats exploitation of children. 1
Investigate Church accountability mechanisms for clergy sexual misconduct
Church accountability for clergy sexual misconduct is structured on (a) defined canonical delicts and penalties, (b) a division of responsibilities between local Ordinaries and the Holy See, (c) procedural safeguards (including the presumption of innocence), and (d) mandatory cooperation with civil authorities—all grounded in the Church’s duty to protect minors and the vulnerable.
Pope Francis repeatedly frames accountability as a response to both the sins committed and the failures of omission by Church leaders that left victims and other minors at risk. In speaking to clergy sex-abuse victims, he said he was asking forgiveness for “the sins of omission on the part of Church leaders who did not respond adequately to reports of abuse,” and emphasized: “There is no place in the Church’s ministry for those who commit these abuses… All bishops must carry out their pastoral ministry with the utmost care… and they will be held accountable.”
The Church’s approach is also explicitly preventative and systemic, not only case-by-case. Pope Francis calls for a “culture able to prevent such situations” and “prevent the possibility of their being covered up and perpetuated.”
Francis states that the Church intends to apply the “‘zero tolerance’ principle against the sexual abuse of minors.”
The most detailed mechanisms in the provided materials concern sexual abuse of minors by clerics—particularly delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) under the updated norms. The 2010 Normae de gravioribus delictis identifies “the more grave delicts against morals… reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” including:
These sources also state that punishment is “according to the gravity of his crime,” explicitly “not excluding dismissal or deposition.”
Important limitation: the sources here focus specifically on child sexual abuse by clerics. Church accountability for other forms of sexual misconduct may involve additional norms, but those are not developed in the provided documents.
Historically and procedurally, the Church has modified competence so cases can be handled more effectively and expeditiously. One described driver for the 1990s and early-2000s reforms was the increasing exposure of historical cases.
By the period described in these materials, the CDF has substantive and procedural authority for these reserved cases, and the CDF can handle or oversee parts of the process. For example, the preliminary investigation “may be, but need not be, undertaken directly by the Congregation” (CDF).
The canonical system includes:
The sources state that during the preliminary investigation, with due regard for the rights of the local Ordinary, the CDF may take precautionary measures provided for in canon 1722.
These mechanisms are not limited to one type of penalty. The materials describe that penal processes may be conducted judicially or administratively, and that in other cases “administrative and disciplinary provisions” were used, including restrictions like limitations on the celebration of Mass, prohibitions on hearing confessions, and withdrawal into a retired life of prayer with no public contact; in particularly serious cases, a decree of dismissal from the clerical state could be issued.
A central accountability mechanism is the principle that the local hierarchy must act. The Congregation’s circular letter states: “The responsibility for dealing with cases of sexual abuse of minors belongs, in the first place, to Bishops or Major Superiors.”
The same circular letter gives concrete expectations for bishops when they receive accusations:
Even while preserving innocence, bishops are not powerless. The circular letter explains that “the bishop is always able to limit the exercise of the cleric’s ministry until the accusations are clarified.”
The Church also builds in reputation-sensitive safeguards. If the accused is “wrongly accused,” the bishop should ensure steps are taken “to rehabilitate the good name of a cleric wrongly accused.”
Accountability includes outreach and prevention. The circular letter describes a bishop’s duties as requiring:
It also emphasizes preparedness “to listen to the victims and their families,” and commitment to spiritual and psychological assistance.
A key accountability mechanism is that Church authorities are not meant to handle these matters instead of civil institutions. The CDF materials repeatedly insist that civil law reporting requirements must be followed.
So, from the Church’s standpoint as reflected in these documents, accountability is joint: canonical processes and civil justice are both required—according to their respective domains.
Beyond individual canonical cases, Pope Francis established the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors to improve norms and procedures and help strengthen responsibility at every level.
He presents it as an “effective means” to encourage and advance commitments by:
He also urges that priority not be given to concerns like avoiding scandal, because “there is absolutely no place in ministry for those who abuse minors.”
Francis also explicitly points to the need for local implementation and review:
The circular letter includes prevention mechanisms such as formation and education:
In a 2023 address, Francis notes that he “confirmed the Motu Proprio Vos estis lux mundi (VELM), which is now permanently in place,” and says it calls for “setting aside places for receiving accusations and caring for those who report that they have been harmed (cf. Art. 2).”
This supports the idea that accountability mechanisms include institutional pathways for receiving allegations—not only adjudication after the fact.
From the Church’s own accountability framework in these materials, “accountability” is not a single lever but a system: reserved canonical jurisdiction for grave delicts, mandatory preliminary investigation, precautionary measures, real penalties up to dismissal, clear roles for bishops and major superiors, procedural fairness including presumption of innocence, a duty to cooperate with civil reporting requirements, and system-level prevention and oversight through guidelines, formation, and the Pontifical Commission—explicitly aimed at preventing further harm and cover-ups.