Testimony of Bishop Charles V. Grahmann – Part 4

Cross-Examination of Bishop Grahmann by Sylvia Demarest
First of Two Parts
July 2, 1997

[BishopAccountability.org obtained this transcript from from the Web site www.wearethechurch.org, where a much larger sample of the trial transcript is posted. The Web master of that site asks that you contact him if information identifying a victim or a victim's family has been overlooked in the redaction process. He also observes that "there are many typing errors in the following document, including errors in dates such as 1996 when the date should be 1986. This is the condition of the court transcript document as received." For ease of reading, the staff at BishopAccountability.org has removed the line numbers from the Grahmann transcript, put the page numbers in square brackets, and grouped the Q&A exchanges. We have made no other changes.]

CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MS. DEMAREST:

Q. Good morning, Bishop Grahmann.
A. Good morning, Sylvia.

Q. Now, Bishop Grahmann, there isn't any doubt,
is there that as Bishop, you are the head of the Dallas
Diocese and you're fully empowered to govern the Diocese on
a day-to-day basis?
A. Based on the Code of Canon Law. [7747]

Q. Well, I'm sorry.
Bishop, when we took your deposition, you
didn't give us that qualification, did you?
A. I don't remember.

Q. On page 160:
"Q. Is it your understanding of how the
Catholic or Diocese of Dallas is organized, is that you are
the head of the Diocese and empowered to fully govern your
Diocese on a day-to-day basis?"
And your answer was:
"A. Yes, correct."
"Q. Is there anyone that you take orders
from in connection with the governance of your Diocese on
matters of personnel, supervision, discipline of priests in
the Dallas Diocese?"
And your answer was:
"A. No one."
Now that is as correct today,
Bishop Grahmann, as it was when your deposition was taken
on September 1st, 1994, isn't it?
A. No, because it is not the full extent. The
Code of Canon Law governs everything.

Q. And under the --
A. And under that code, that is correct.

Q. And under the Code of Canon Law, you're the [7748]
boss, and all of these statements you said in your
deposition are correct.
A. Full responsibility is on the Bishop.

Q. In other words, the buck stops with you, as
Bishop, regarding the Dallas Diocese and the supervision
and direction of its priests.
A. That's correct.

Q. Even an autogamous (sp) agency, such as
Catholic Charities that has its own board of directors, you
have the authority to overrule even that board, as Bishop
of Dallas.
A. That's possible.

Q. Well, now, in your deposition, Bishop, you
said that you, in fact, had that authority; isn't that
correct?
A. I don't remember.

Q. You indicated that the Catholic Charities
operated as an autogamous agency with its own separate
broad; is that correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. "They're not autonomous from the Diocese",
you said, "but they do have their own board of directors
that makes decisions for them."
"Q. What is the relationship of that board
to you? Can you overrule that board when you say they are [7749]
not autonomous?"
And your answer was:
"A. Well, I could overrule them, yes. "
Question:
"Q. You have the authority to do that?"
Answer:.
"A. I have the authority to do that."
A. That is correct.

Q. Isn't that correct, Bishop Grahmann?
A. That is correct.

Q. In other words, there isn't anybody that you
answer to, in terms of the jurisdictional authority that
you have in the running of the Diocese, and that is true of
every Catholic Bishop and their diocese?
A. Based on the parameters of the Code of Canon
Law.

Q. Well, I think in your deposition you -- I --
you were asked:
"Q. You take no orders from any institution
on this earth."
And you said:
"A. Jurisdictional authority, no."
Isn't that correct, Bishop Grahmann?
A. Yes, but based on the parameters of the Code
of Canon Law. [7750]

Q. We're talking about within the parameters of
the Code of Canon Law.
A. Okay.

Q. And that is the authority that you have;
isn't that correct?
A. That's correct. That responsibility is
mine.

Q. And that responsibility is yours and yours
alone; isn't that true, Bishop Grahmann?
A. That's correct.

Q. All right.
And that was true of Bishop Tschoepe, as
well; isn't that correct?
A. I imagine so.

Q. It is true of any bishop.
A. I imagine so.

Q. And that was -- and that's true with regard
to whether or not a priest is going the be ordained, you
have, as Bishop, the final say on that?
A. That's correct.

Q. Whether or not a priest is going to be
assigned and the type of assignment he is going to receive,
you have the final authority on that?
A. That's correct.

Q. And whether or not a priest is going to be [7751]
removed, you have the final authority --
A. That's correct.

Q. -- on that.
Now, you became the first Bishop of Victoria
on May the 29th, 1982; is that correct?
A. That is correct.

Q. Were you here when Father Tom Doyle
testified about his service as a Canonist at the Vatican
Embassy?
A. No, I was not.

Q. Are you aware of the fact that he did some
of the work in terms of putting together the jurisdiction
of the Victoria Diocese and the precept that was sent to
Rome about the selection of bishops?
A. No, I am not.

Q. Do you know Father Doyle?
A. No, I do not.

Q. And you served in Victoria, as Bishop, from
1982 until you were appointed coadjutor in the Dallas
Diocese on, I think, December the 11th, 1989; is that
correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. Now, as Bishop, from 1982 until you were
coadjutor and finally appointed Bishop, to the present
time, you've been a member of the Texas Catholic [7752]
Conference; is that correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.
And the Texas Catholic Conference is an
organization, is it not, of bishops, vicar generals,
judicial vicars that represent the various dioceses in the
state?
A. It is an association, yes.

Q. It is an association.
And part of what the Texas Catholic
Conference does is to offer education and -- and conference
to assist its members with issues that they have to deal
with in their dioceses?
A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.
Isn't it true, Bishop Grahmann, that as
early as April of 1985 the Texas Catholic Conference was
offering seminars that dealt with the sexual abuse of
children by Roman Catholic priests?
A. I don't recall them.

Q. These are materials that we were furnished
this week, Bishop. And it is -- and I know you can't see
it. But do you know who Father Michael Jamail is; do you
not?
A. Yes, I know him. [7753]
MR. MATHIS: Your Honor, could I object,
Objection A, here?
THE COURT: Sure. The objection is overruled.
MR. MATHIS: Can I have a running objection?
THE COURT: Yes, you can.

Q. (BY MS. DEMAREST) Here is a document that
has the stamp of Curia of Dallas dated November the 9th,
1985. It is addressed to Bishops of Texas. There is an S
missing, but we know that is true, because confidential
presentation to the Bishops of Texas, November the 9th is
an attachment.
It's from Father Thomas Jamail. And he is
sending some -- some revisions of his notes regarding a
presentation on pedophilia that was made to the Bishops at
the spring meeting in April of 1985.
Did you attend that meeting,
Bishop Grahmann?
A. I possibly did.

Q. And he says, "In the April notes I made
reference to the NCCB Priestly Life Committee preparing a
legal protocol and remedial protocol for bishops and
provincials on pedophilia. The purpose was to put each
bishop's hands on a recipe book of immediate steps to take
regarding the sexual" -- "re the legal procedure and
remedial therapeutic process when faced with charges of [7754]
sexual child abuse against clergy. Unfortunately, some
kind of struggle developed over leadership regarding this
grave issue, and the efforts of the Priestly Life Committee
were blocked regarding the protocols and very nearly
brought, regarding the pedophilia presentation, at the
Collegeville 1985 meeting."
And so as a result, he is redoing his notes
about the pedophilia conference which was held in April --
on April the 16th, 1985 concerning the Bishops.
Are you aware of that, that these kinds of
conference --
A. I don't recall.

Q. -- were being held?
Now, as Bishop, you are also a member of the
National Conference of Catholic Bishops; are you not?
A. That is correct.

Q. This is an organization of all of the
Bishops in the United States, is it not, and you get
together once or twice a year and have you committees and
there is a -- there is an entire staff back in Washington
that assists the bishops with various issues; isn't that
basically correct?
A. It is an association, yes.

Q. Okay. Isn't it true, that there was, in
fact, a presentation on the issue of, pedophilia to the [7755]
Bishops of the United States at the Collegeville meeting in
1985, just as Father Jamail referenced, "Pedophilia
presentation at the Collegeville 1985 meeting"?
That occurred; did it not?
A. That is possible. I don't recall it.

Q. You were at that meeting; were you not?
A. Yes, I was.

Q. And, in fact, according to Father Jamail,
the Priestly Life in Ministry Committee had been paying
increased attention to the issue of pedophilia for the
preceding two years, which from 1985 would put it back to
1983; isn't that correct?
A. Possibly.

Q. And it says here on his memo, which is
received by the Curia of Dallas on November the 9th, 1985,
it says, "In February arrangements were made to have the
issue of pedophilia placed on the agenda for the 1985
Collegeville meeting of the Bishops. The three hour
presentation is to include a bishop, faced with a
pedophilia problem, in the external forum, a priest
psychologist to explain the nature of pedophilia and a
criminal lawyer to explain the liabilities for the church
involved in the pedophilia issue. Also, the committee has
requested that an entire day's presentation on the issue of
homosexual be made to the Bishop." [7756]
You were at that meeting; were you not?
A. I possibly was.

Q. And on page 2 of Mr. Jamail's memo, dated
November the 9th, 1985, "The Priestly Life and Ministry
Committee has begun the process of preparing, in
conjunction with the NCCB legal counsel, two protocols for
use by bishops when faced with the pedophilia issue. The
committee's desire is to have a legal protocol and a
remedial protocol available for a diocesan bishop or major
superior, so that he would know immediately the steps he
should take when faced with accusations against a priest or
with the priest's arrest without prior knowledge given to
the Bishop by law enforcement. Less and less can the
church expect the policy or district attorney to wink at
such incidents or even to give the diocese a call before a
priest is arrested and booked."
In other words, Bishop, these were issues which by
1985 had been presented to the bishops in Texas, by
Father Jamail and others, and had also been presented to
the Bishops in the United States; isn't that correct?
A. That is correct.

Q. And, in fact, the very next year, in 1986,
an additional seminar and conference was presented to the
Bishop of Texas -- bishops of Texas, again by
Father Jamail; isn't that correct? Here is a -- here is [7757]
the file mark receipt of the Curia of Dallas, January the
18th, 1986. It is to all Diocese Bishops, auxiliary
bishop, vicar general, judicial vicar, diocesan attorneys.
That would be your outside counsel; would it not?
A. I'm not sure.

Q. Vicars cars for canonical affairs, vicars
for clergy, business managers, chancellors, chairmen of the
priest personnel boards and other interested parties. And
it is regarding a 1986 spring conference where the judicial
vicars are going to have a presentation called A Diocesan
Response to Sexual Child Abuse Cases, Psychological,
Canonical and civil Overviews. And that is going to be
held in San Antonio, Monday, March the 3rd in 1986.
And it goes on to tell us who will be the
presenters. And it includes, does it not, the Judicial
Vicar from the Diocese of LaFayette, Louisiana
Monsignor Larouque; is that correct?
A. I don't know.

Q. Well, let me let you look at it and make
sure what I'm telling you is correct.
A. (witness reading)
Yes, I accept that.

Q. And, in fact, attached to Father Jamail's
memo is the Agenda of the Conference which was held March
3rd to 4th, 1986 and the presentations from the Canon Law [7758]
Society, Sexuality and the Clergy, by Father Jamail, Sexual
Child Abuse, the Canonical Response, Civil Law Aspects, A
Local Church Experience, by Father Larouque. And he is
talking about the Gauthe case, isn't he?
A. I don't know.

Q. Questions and answers of presenters. An
entire day's meeting; is that not correct?
A. I don't know.

Q. Well, let me let you look at it.
A. (witness reading)

Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. It is a day's meeting; is it not?
A. I would imagine so.

Q. Getting back to Father Jamail's memo which
he sent to the Diocese on 11-6-85, received by the Curia of
Dallas on November the 9th, 1985, he suggests, does he not,
on page 3, "The appointment of a Blue Ribbon Council of
priests; is that true?
A. That's correct.

Q. Did you appoint a Blue Ribbon Council of
priests in Victoria?
A. Yes.

Q. And all of that really stems, including the
appointment of the Blue Ribbon Council here in Dallas, all [7759]
of that really stems from these recommendations that were
being made as early as 1985 by Father Jamail and others who
were educating the bishops and their staffs in Dallas about
the -- in Texas, about this issue; isn't that correct?
A. Possibly before '85. There was ongoing
development of this whole issue.

Q. Okay. Father Jamail also tells you, on
11-6 1985, does he not, that, "Though I assume the
innocence of every priest accused of pedophilia, until
there is clear documentation of his guilt, I must tell you
that one of the personality characteristics of the
pedophile is a very strong denial that he has committed any
wrong, or if he acknowledges the pedophilic behavior, there
is a strong denial that there is any serious consequence,
and usually the pedophile will not understand what others
are so upset about. The Blue Ribbon Council must keep this
denial pattern in mind as it is investigating the charges."
Now, we've seen this very same denial
pattern, have we not, in Rudy Kos, seven years later?
A. I'm not sure.

Q. Now, Bishop Grahmann, one of the other
documents that has been located recently is the cover
letter that went with the confidential memoranda which has
been admitted as Exhibit 146 that Father Doyle testified
was mailed to all of the bishops, "Hope these guidelines [7760]
will be helpful to you. I have only sent to it the
ordinaries of each U.S. dioceses and archdioceses. If you
wish any further copies, I'll be happy to send them to your
auxiliary bishop." This is from Father Michael Peterson.
There is a date stamp of received in the Diocese of Dallas
of December 22nd, 1985. It was mailed December the 9th and
it is a cover letter that went with that document.
You received a similar document in Victoria;
did you not?
A. I imagine I did.

Q. So by 1985 the Bishop of Dallas and the
Bishops in Texas would have had a conference on the issue
of pedophilia, that had been put on by the group that we've
talked about, there would have been a presentation to the
bishops at the Collegeville meeting in 1985, and there
would have been the receipt of this Doyle, Peterson, Mouton
report in December of 1985, all dealing with the issue of
pedophilia; is that correct?
A. Constant development, yes.

Q. All right.
And then in the spring of 1986 there would
have been another presentation that we've talked about
here, including the agenda for the conference, which
included from Laroque from Louisiana coming up there and
talking about their experiences; isn't that correct? [7761]
A. I'm not sure.

Q. Okay. Well, let me -- let me make sure that
you're sure.
We've already gone over this. There was a
spring conference that was held in March of 1986, put on by
this group. And it included all of the individuals that it
was addressed to. And we've already gone over the agenda,
which included a day's presentation on this subject; isn't
that correct, Bishop?
A. It appears that it took place, yes.

Q. All right.
Now in addition to that, Bishop, we know
that the Dallas Diocese had an additional conference on
priest pedophilia in May of 1986, which included the
attachment of a number of articles on the subject,
including an article, a very extensive article on the
situation in Louisiana involving Father Gauthe. Are you
aware of that, Bishop?
A. No.

Q. Did you have similar conferences in your
Diocese on this issue?
A. I imagine we did. We had may conferences.

Q. Okay.
And, in fact, Bishop, isn't it true that
according to Exhibit 172, by February the 8th, 1986 there [7762]
had actually been a trial --
MR. MATHIS: Your Honor, objection, Objection A
to this again. Do I have my running objection --
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. MATHIS: -- to all of this?
THE COURT: You do.

Q. (BY MS. DEMAREST) There had already been a
trial, and a jury had found against the Diocese of Dallas
in the Gauthe case; had they not?
MR. TURLEY: Louisiana. You said the Diocese of
Dallas.

Q. (BY MS. DEMAREST) I'm sorry. This involves
the Diocese of LaFayette, Louisiana.
And by February the 8th, 1986 the Dallas
Diocese, according to Exhibit 172, had in its possession
information -- extensive information about the Gauthe can't
case and what was going on in Louisiana concerning Gilbert
Gauthe. This would have been done in May of 1996; are you
aware of that, Bishop?
A. No.

Q. Isn't it true, Bishop, that Gilbert Gauthe's
case was quite well-known and discussed among the bishops
in the State of Texas and the bishops in the dioceses and
the bishops of the United States; isn't that true?
A. I can't vouch for that. [7763]

Q. Didn't do you that, sir? Weren't you
concerned and didn't you discuss that with your colleagues?
A. I don't remember.

Q. Isn't it true, Bishop Grahmann, that one of
the ways that Gilbert Gauthe got sexual access to these
buys in Louisiana was because he had them overnight in the
rectory in his diocese, and that information was very
well-known by everybody in the United States, basically,
that had to deal with this problem, as bishops, by 1985;
isn't that true, Bishop?
MR. MATHIS: Objection. It calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained, all Bishops.

Q. (BY MS. DEMAREST) Okay.
Bishop Grahmann, didn't you know by 1985
that the practice of a priest of having boys overnight in
the rectory was one of the ways that these priests obtained
sexual access to these boys, because that practice had been
publicized as being a very substantial part of what Gilbert
Gauthe did to sexually abuse the boys in Louisiana?
A. No, I did not know that.

Q. Didn't you also know, Bishop Grahmann, that
another technique that Father Gauthe used was to take boys
on overnight trips, unaccompanied by another adult, so that
he could get them alone for the purpose of having sexual
access to them; did you not know that? [7764]
A. No, I did not know that.

Q. Are you telling this jury that it should not
have been clear by 1985 to any Catholic Bishop, based on
all of this information that you were provided at that
time, that the practice of a priest of having boys in the
rectory in his private room was a bad practice and was
highly correlated to child sexual abuse?
A. No -- no, I'm not telling them that.

MR. MATHIS: Are we at a convenient place to take a
morning break?
THE COURT: You bet.
Good stopping spot?
Let's try to keep a fifteen minute break.

(Whereupon the jury was excused from the
courtroom, and thereafter the following was had, out of the
presence of the jury, as follows:)

MS. DEMAREST: They have been obsessing about it
fifteen minutes.
THE COURT: Stop.
Do it. The record may reflect:

MR. MATHIS: I just want to reflect,
on-the-record, that the exhibit that was on the overhead
projector, for the jury to see, when the questions about
the Gauthe case were being asked, was Exhibit No. 172 was
page 6 of the newspaper article. [7765]
THE COURT: Okay, the record may so reflect.
MR. MATHIS: Okay.

(Whereupon the jury was brought into the
courtroom and thereafter the following was had:)

THE COURT: Okay, you may proceed.
MS. DEMAREST: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. DEMAREST) Bishop Grahmann, I have
just written up on the board, from the Priestly Life and
Ministry for the -- I didn't make that clear, for the NCCB,
starts looking into priest pedophilia in 1983, and then
we've gone over this August -- I mean, the April 16th, 1985
conference of the Texas Catholic Conference. And then --
in 1985 at the Collegeville meetings, the Bishop's
Conference discusses the subject and there is a whole day's
presentation.

And then in December of 1985 the Doyle
report is received by the Bishops in the dioceses,
including the Bishop of Texas. Then in March of 1986 there
is another conference on pedophilia that the Texas Catholic
Conference puts on, and then in June of 1986 there is a
conference in the Dallas Diocese on the subject of
pedophilia.

And that coincides, does it not, Bishop,
with the written complaints concerning Father Kos filed by [7766]
Father Dan Clayton; does it not?
A. I'm not sure.

Q. We've already got into evidence Exhibit 86
which shows that Father Clayton began by -- with a personal
visit with Bishop Tschoepe. And then we have a summary of
the activities of Father Clayton, over that period of time,
in an effort to attempt to get the practice on Father Kos'
part of having little boys stay overnight at the rectory to
stop.

Now, isn't it reasonable, Bishop Grahmann,
considering all of the conferences and the information that
had been presented to the bishops by the time Father
Clayton begins his efforts to get this practice to stop,
for the practice of Father Kos having little boys spend the
night in the rectory, to have ended in 1985, wouldn't that
have been reasonable?
A. Not exactly.

Q. Why isn't that exactly?
A. Because those were conferences that were
develop being this whole them along the way, it wasn't
specific yet, new information kept coming up, and dioceses
were trying to deal with that on another level, and so you
don't have anything set in stone very quickly.

Q. So you're telling this jury that when a
priest takes a little boy into his room, his private [7767]
quarters in the rectory, closes the door, sleeps with him
at night, that after you have attended, you know, one, two,
three, four, five -- four conferences, looked at a long
manual, you can't get the idea that that practice should
stop? Is that what you're telling me?
A. No, I'm not telling the jury that. No, I'm
not telling the jury that.

Q. All right.
Isn't it reasonable, Bishop Grahmann, given
the information that the dioceses had at that time, for
them to at least know that it was not a good practice for a
priest to take a little boy into his bedroom, close the
door and spend the night with him? Can't we at least say
that?
A. Possibly.

Q. Can't we say that probably?
A. Possibly.

Q. We can possibly say that probably?
A. Probably possibly.

Q. Probably possibly, okay.
(laughter in the courtroom)
Isn't it reasonable for anybody -- I don't
care if we're talking about a bishop, if we're -- if we're
talking about anybody that is dealing with an employee who
is doing that, to tell that employee, immediately, to stop [7768]
that practice? That should happen, shouldn't it, Bishop?
A. It probably should.

Q. Okay. And if there was any indication that
the practice was going to continue, shouldn't the parents
of that child have been told, "We have a policy that says
kids don't spend the night in the rectory with the priest.
Please don't let your son do that", wouldn't that have been
reasonable?
A. Possibly.

Q. Possibly probably?
A. Yes.

Q. Or probably oh possibly?
A. Probably possibly.

Q. All right.
Can't we also say that given this
information that has been put together and given to the
bishops by all of these people who were trying to educate
the bishops about this problem -- and let me stop for a
minute.
Isn't it very clear, Bishop Grahmann, that
by 1984 and 1985 this was known to be a problem by the
bishops of the United States?
A. It was beginning to be understood as a
problem. And that's why all of these things began to take
place. [7769]

Q. And the reason I'm asking this question is
because you knew it was happening. You know it was
happening.
A. The country was beginning to be sensitized to
this.

Q. To the fact it was happening --
A. That's right.

Q. -- and you wanted to try and you should have
tried to figure out how to stop it.
A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.
One of the ways to stop it would have been
to make sure that a priest couldn't take a little boy in
his bedroom, close the door and spend the night with them.
That it would have been one way.
A. Well, the Code of Canon Law would prohibit
any kind of behavior like that, anyhow.

Q. And, in fact, the Code of Canon Law really
doesn't approve of a priest taking a little boy into his
bedroom and closing the door and spending the night with
him, either, does it?
A. It doesn't use that as an example.

Q. But, I mean, it talks about propriety and
appearance and all of that.
A. That's correct. [7770]

Q. And that sure doesn't go along with that
canon, does it?
A. That's correct.

Q. It doesn't, does it?
A. That's correct.

Q. A priest taking a little boy out of town
overnight all by himself, on a vacation, on a trip fishing,
that kind of thing, without other adult supervision, that
is not a good practice, either. And if you're concerned
about child sexual abuse, that is a practice that ought to
stop.
A. In relationship to child sexual abuse, yes.

Q. All right.
And if you think that a priest might be
doing that without you knowing about it you ought to tell
the parents, "Don't let your kid do this. We know you love
Father so-and-so, but we have a policy that says priest
don't do this, and we would appreciate your obeying that
policy", isn't that reasonable?
A. Inasmuch as possible.

Q. That is reasonable, isn't it?
A. Inasmuch as possible.

Q. And it was reasonable to do that back when
the bishops began to understand the extent of this problem
and began to have all of these meetings and send out all of [7771]
these documents in an effort to protect children. Isn't
that reasonable that that that should have been started
happening back then?
A. Possibly.

Q. Possibly, probably?
A. That's correct.

Q. Probably possibly?
A. Probably possibly.

Q. Okay.
Can we agree that looking at Exhibit 86 and
the documents that we've talked about with Father Clayton
and others that support this, that the Dallas Diocese was
on notice -- the Bishop of the Dallas Diocese was on notice
by December 10th, 1985 that Father Kos was engaged in
activities that gave the appearance impropriety in that he
was taking little boys into his bedroom, closing the door
and spending the night with them; can we agree on that?
A. It's more complicated than that.

Q. No, my question is not complicated. The
question is very simple.
It says right here (indicating) that Father
Clayton had a personal visit with Bishop Tschoepe. And I
think his log reflects that. Exhibit 69, December the
10th, 1986, "I visited with Bishop Tschoepe and
Sister Maureen about my concern", and the line up above
7772
that is about three different boys overnight at the
rectory.
Can we agree that, according to Exhibit 69,
by December the 10th, 1985, because this is dated February
6th, 1986 --
Oh, it's fixed. I'm sorry.
A. It's a miracle. And Mr. Turley did it.
MR. TURLEY: Oh, no, no. I get the credit. I
get the credit.
THE WITNESS: Would you take a bow?
(laughter in the courtroom)

Q. (BY MS. DEMAREST) ) My question is
relatively simple, I think, and that is: Can't we agree
that by December the 10th, 1985, through this meeting that
Father Clayton had with Bishop Tschoepe and Sister Maureen,
that the Diocese of Dallas was on notice, in writing, that
Father Kos had a practice of keeping boys overnight in his
personal quarters at the rectory at St. Luke's in Irving?
A. That seems to be correct.

Q. Okay.
And I think if we look at these logs, we
will see that the Dallas Diocese was also on notice of the
practice of Father Kos of taking these little boys on
overnight trips by sometime in 1986, because I think it is
documented in the logs. I'll have to find it.
7773
But somewhere in the logs, Father Clayton --
Exhibit 75, a letter to Rudy -- Father Rudy Kos, with a
copy to Bishop Tschoepe and Monsignor Rehkemper, from
Father Clayton, dated July 21st, 1986, talking about them
leaving on a trip with "John Doe #12" and "John Doe #4" and
"John Doe #1", two of whom are plaintiffs in this case. And
"John Doe #1", I think, was twelve -- eleven or twelve years
old at that time and I think "John Doe #4" was about twelve years
old at that time.
So can't we agree that by July 21st, 1986
the Dallas Dioceses had notice that Father Kos was taking
little boys on overnight trips without adult supervision?
Can you agree on that?
A. That seems to be correct.

Q. Now we've been talking about the rectory.
I'm not sure everybody understands what we're talking about
here. A rectory is, in part, living -- the living
quarters where priests live.
A. In part, yes.

Q. In part.
Some rectories, like All Saints, is almost
all living quarters. Others, like St. Luke's, might have
offices downstairs, others, like St. John's, might have
office in front?
A. I don't know the configuration of these [7774]
buildings.

Q. Okay.
The pastor lives there, does he not, in the
rectory?
A. Not always.

Q. But it is common --
A. In general --

Q. -- for the pastor to live there?
A. -- yes.

Q. And it is also common for other priests to
live there as well?
A. If one is assigned there, yes.

Q. And that rectory is part of the church
property that is used to minister to the people of that
parish?
A. That's correct.

Q. Now, Bishop Grahmann, do you understand that
in this case the vast majority of all of the sexual
misconduct that is complained about took place in the
rectory in Father Kos' office, on church property; do you
understand that?
A. I'm not sure, --

Q. Well --
A. -- because you've indicated other things
also, so I'm not sure. [7775]

Q. There have been some out of town trips, but
I think about ninety percent of the sexual contact we're
talking about either took place at All Saints, in the
rectory, at St. Luke's, in the rectory, or St. John's in
the rectory; do you understand that, Bishop?
A. Yeah. I don't have any knowledge of that.

Q. Okay. You have no reason to disagree with
the testimony that has happened in this case.
A. That's correct.

Q. And isn't it true that it was not secret to
anybody, from the time Rudy Kos was first assigned to All
Saints, that he had boys spending the night and that there
was no secret about that all the way through the time that
he was removed in October of 1992. That is a fact, isn't
it?
A. I'm not sure that everybody knew it.

Q. Well, it was no secret. Monsignor Kamel
knew that it was going on at All Saints, Father Clayton
knew that it was going on at St. Luke's and -- and Father
Torres and Father Williams knew that it was going on --
A. Some people knew; that's correct.

Q. Some people knew.
And at least from September of 1991, you
knew.
A. That's correct. [7776]