Brooklyn Diocese knew of abuse allegations decades before barring priest from ministry, files show

Recently unsealed personnel files from the Diocese of Brooklyn show that diocesan leaders knew explicit details of repeated sexual misconduct and abuse allegations against a priest for decades before he was officially barred from ministry.

New York Supreme Court Judge Joanne Quiñones in January ordered the unsealing of diocesan records related to Patrick Sexton, a former priest who was officially barred from ministry there in 2004 and was eventually laicized by Pope Benedict XVI.

The judge’s order was connected to a lawsuit against the Brooklyn Diocese regarding alleged abuse by Sexton.

A November 2004 letter from then-moderator of the diocesan curia, Monsignor Otto Garcia, to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — then-prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (now the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith) — said that “for many years” the diocese “has had to deal with numerous allegations of sexual abuse” leveled against Sexton.

Garcia told Ratzinger — who the following April would be elected Pope Benedict XVI — that the allegations included “taking photographs of young boys disrobed, sexual touching over and under the clothes of the victim, masturbation, and oral sex.”

Sexton “admitted to a number of these allegations” and “denied some of them as well,” Garcia wrote.

The priest told Ratzinger that Sexton was “removed from priestly ministry” in 1990, though that designation appears to have been informal, as Garcia also wrote that Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio in 2004 imposed a “canonical precept” barring him from both priestly ministry and presenting himself as a priest.

DiMarzio’s 2004 edict had the result of “formalizing what [had] been in effect” since 1990, Garcia wrote.

The monsignor said that the bishop had already urged Sexton to petition the Vatican for laicization and that if he declined to do so then DiMarzio himself would seek the dismissal. The Brooklyn Diocese lists Sexton as having been laicized in 2006.

‘He did not think that it was abnormal’

Though Sexton was officially barred from ministry in Brooklyn in 2004, diocesan officials knew of sexual misconduct allegations against him at least 25 years prior, according to the files released in January.

The unsealed personnel files, obtained by EWTN News, show documentation of accusations dating back to at least 1979.

On Sept. 6 of that year, Monsignor Anthony Bevilacqua wrote an account for Sexton‘s “confidential file” in which he relayed having spoken to Sexton about allegations that the priest “took pictures of naked boys in a shower.”

Sexton admitted to having taken the pictures of the boys while they were showering at Jones Beach on Long Island, according to the file. The boys ranged from age 7 to 10.

Sexton “[did] not know why” he took the pictures, Bevilacqua wrote, and Sexton further said that at the time he “did not think that it was abnormal.”

Bevilacqua said he spoke to multiple police officers and two parents of the children regarding the incident. In a memorandum to Bishop Francis Mugavero he said he would “not recommend” that Sexton be transferred from his parish; his actual recommendation to the bishop is redacted in the file reviewed by EWTN News.

‘Because it was pleasurable‘

In another entry in Sexton’s confidential file, this one dated Sept. 29, 1986, Garcia relayed a conversation he had with a boy at the diocesan chancery who alleged that Sexton had touched him inappropriately during an overnight stay at the rectory of Brooklyn’s St. Cecilia Catholic Church.

The account — in which the victim’s name is redacted — says that Sexton invited the young boy over to the rectory, during which he took a picture of him getting out of the shower and then later fondled him repeatedly.

The boy, who is identified as being 11 years old at the time of the first incident, further said that Sexton at times grabbed the boy’s hand and “tried to put them under [Sexton’s] underpants.” The boy said he experienced anger issues and declining grades in school after the incidents.

In an entry dated the next day, Sept. 30, Garcia said he spoke to Sexton, who “did not deny the allegations” but denied that his behavior was of a “sexual nature.”

Pressed as to why he would “put his hands on someone’s genitals,” Sexton responded: “Because it was pleasurable.” Garcia said the priest continued to insist that there was “nothing ‘sexual’” about his behavior.

The priest “denied that there had been other similar situations,” Garcia wrote, though he subsequently “admitted to similar actions” involving another boy.

Sexton made an appointment to see Mugavero the next day, the file notes. A subsequent entry on Oct. 2 says the priest met with the bishop on Oct. 1, though much of that entry is heavily redacted.

One portion indicates that some sort of action had been taken so that Sexton could “work out his problem.” The entry said Mugavero indicated that Sexton once again “did not deny any of the allegations.”

Another largely redacted entry from Garcia several months later, on Jan. 28, 1987, makes reference to a meeting the bishop had with Sexton; it is unclear if it was the meeting that took place the previous October.

The account notes that the bishop encouraged Sexton “as a brother priest, so that he may continue to develop his many positive talents.”

‘We need to speak about this’

By late 1990 it appears that Sexton had left ministry entirely; a file lists him as having taken sick leave effective Sept. 20 of that year.

In a letter dated Dec. 11, 1990, Bishop Thomas Daily — who had been installed in the diocese on April 18 — wrote to Garcia that Sexton wanted “no financial assistance” from the diocese, though he requested that his health benefits and pension both continue.

“He lives with his brother in Manhattan, and is playing the organ here and there in churches,” the bishop wrote. “We need to speak about this.”

The files indicate that accusations continued to be leveled against the priest as late as November 2000 and for alleged abuse occurring as late as 1990.

A 2004 file lists him as living “as a layman with secular employment.” He would be laicized by Pope Benedict XVI on April 7, 2006.

‘Civil accountability and transparency’

In a statement to EWTN News, the Brooklyn Diocese said it “does not comment on pending litigation” but that it “recognizes the devastating impact of sexual abuse and has and will always continue to apologize to all victim-survivors of clergy sex abuse.”

In 2004, two years before Sexton was laicized, the diocese — like many others in the U.S. around that time — implemented a safe environment program following the U.S. bishops’ Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.

The diocese told EWTN News that it mandates sexual abuse awareness training for “all clergy, employees, and volunteers who interact with children.”

The diocese also said it performs mandatory background checks “for all seminary and diaconate applicants, as well as every clergy member, employee, and volunteer with regular contact with minors.”

Anelga Doumanian, a Seattle-based attorney whose firm is representing three of Sexton’s accusers, said the release of the files represents a “landmark” decision in U.S. courts.

None of Doumanian’s clients are represented in the allegations found in Sexton’s files, she said. The lawsuit that led to the release of those materials was filed under New York’s Child Victims Act, which allows victims to sue alleged abusers past the standard statute of limitations.

Doumanian argued that the files will show “the diocese either knew or should have known that Sexton was a danger to, or likely to sexually abuse, children.”

She said the judge’s order signals an important milestone for abuse victims seeking justice in court.

“The moment that you have a lawsuit in a courtroom, that is now open to the public,” she said. “The public has access to the courtroom. The diocese is using terms like ‘confidential documents,’ but that doesn’t discount the openness of courts.”

Ultimately, the release “makes it clear that institutions — whether it’s a religious institution or otherwise — are subject to civil accountability and transparency” in court, Doumanian said.

A trial date in the suit against the Brooklyn Diocese will be set at a future date, the attorney said.