Testimony of Bishop Charles V. Grahmann – Part 5

Cross-Examination of Bishop Grahmann by Sylvia Demarest
Second 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.]

Q. Now, Mr. Turley talked about the fact that
parishioners trust their church and they trust their
bishop, they trust their pastor and trust their priest;
isn't that generally true?
A. That's correct.

Q. And they have a right to believe that the
activities that are going on in the parish that's open and
everybody knows about, are sanctioned by the diocese.
Don't they have a right to believe that?
A. Yes, but I don't think they think in that
fashion, --

Q. But I mean, if they see this is going on?
A. -- but in generally, yes.

Q. And everybody knows about it and they have a
right to think, "Well, it must be okay"?
A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.
Now, if boys are in the rectory and they are
invited to stay overnight and they stay overnight and the
parishioners see that and they know that, they have a right
to think that it okay, don't they?
A. Not necessarily.

Q. Well, if -- if -- if it is going on and
people know about it and nobody stops it and the boys are
invited to spend the night and -- and -- and that happens [7777]
and people are aware of it and the parishioners are aware
of it and nobody says, "Stop that", don't they have a right
to say, "Well, it must be okay"?
A. Not automatically.

Q. Is that a probably not automatically or
possibly --
A. No, just not automatically.

Q. Just not automatically.
Well, in this case, Bishop Grahmann, the
Diocese cannot demonstrate in any way that there were
efforts made, outside of talking to Father Kos, to keep him
from having boys in the rectory overnight. You didn't
tell the parishioners, you didn't publish a policy, you
didn't tell the staff. Other than talking to Father Kos
and dealing with it in that way, that's how you tried to
deal with it; isn't that true?
A. I'm not sure.

Q. Well, that is how you tried to deal with it.
I know you talked to -- you've testified about talking to
some doctors.
A. Yes.

Q. But in terms of stopping the practice
itself, that was done by talking -- that effort was made by
trying to talk to Rudy Kos.
A. Part of the effort, yes. [7778]

Q. In fact, virtually all of the effort was
made trying to talk to --
A. I'm not sure. I can't address that.

Q. All right.
If there is no evidence of any other effort,
isn't the jury entitled to believe that the effort was made
primarily by talking go Rudy Kos, to get that practice to
stop?
A. No, because he was also sent to a
psychiatrist and psychologist. There were many efforts
done -- made.

Q. But that didn't do anything about stopping
him from taking the boy into the bedroom and closing the
door and spending the night with him. Other than talking
to him and sending him for these evaluations, nothing else
was done. That is what I'm trying to establish.
A. I don't agree with that.

Q. Why don't you agree with that, Bishop?
A. Because all kinds of efforts. I talked to
him.

Q. That's what I'm talking about.
A. Okay.

Q. You talked to him.
A. Okay.
And -- and directed him firmly not to have [7779]
children at the rectory anymore.

Q. So you agree with me that the --
A. And, in a sense, they stopped.

Q. Well, now --
A. And then they came back again and then I
moved in again.

Q. You agree with me, then, that the primary
efforts were directed to talking to Father Kos and trying
to get him to stop.
A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.
But it didn't stop.
A. Well, yes, it did stop.

Q. Finally, when you removed him, it stopped.
A. Well, even before that it stopped --

Q. It stopped --
A. -- except for a couple of kids came back.

Q. And then it started again?
A. No, no, no, no. It didn't start all over
again, because I was going remove him if it did.

Q. There is evidence in this case, and I think
your testimony with Mr. Turley, that you had to warn him on
three different occasions about this --
A. That's right.

Q. -- because he didn't stop. [7780]
A. That's right, the third -- well, the second
occasion I warned him, because a couple of kids came back.

Q. He didn't stop.
A. And the third occasion was final.

Q. Okay.
He didn't -- he didn't -- he didn't stop
until he was removed; isn't that pretty clear in this case?
A. No, it is not.

Q. Okay.
A. It probably stopped after my third warning.

Q. Now, the Personnel Committee, I think you
testified in your deposition, is part of the supervision of
priests; isn't that the case?
A. That's correct.

Q. Now, Bishop Grahmann, when you became Bishop
did anybody show you Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 78, which is
the minutes of the Personnel Board meeting involving -- of
July the 22nd, 1986, where it said on page 2, "A letter is
to be sent to Father Kos by the Most Reverend Bishop,
strictly specifying that he is no longer to have young men
overnight in the rectory at St. Luke's or any other place
where he might officially be assigned, under threat of
suspension."
Did you check the actions of the Personnel
Committee concerning Father Kos in deciding how best to go [7781]
about handling the situation when you found out that boys
were spending the night in 1991?
A. No, I did not check the minutes.

Q. Now, you've testified that you warned
Father Kos in September of 1991 to stop the overnight stays
with boys in the rectory. We've gone over that, haven't
we?
A. That's correct.

Q. Now, you did not, after that, issue a
statement to the parishioners and staff at St. John's,
ordering priest at that parish not to let boys sleep in
their rooms with them --
A. I had no reason to do that.

Q. -- you did not know do that.
But my question is: You didn't do that, and
the answer is "yes", isn't that true? You did not do that.
A. I had no reason to do that, that's correct.

Q. But you did not do that, did you, Bishop?
A. I had to reason to do it.

Q. You did not.
A. No, I did not, probably not.

Q. Probably possibly did not.
Now, after your warning to Father Kos, isn't
it true that he returned to St. John's and he continued to
sexually abuse minor boys? [7782]
A. I'm not aware of.

Q. If the testimony in this case is that that
is precisely what happened, do you have any reason to doubt
the boys who are testifying here today?
A. The only thing I know is that in March of
the next year Father Williams came approximately, he said
he was seeing people away from the rectory, he wasn't sure
of it.

Q. But my question involves whether or not
Father Kos, after you warned him and after you did not give
a statement to the parishioners to make sure that the
practice stopped, whether or not Father Kos returned to
St. John's and continued to abuse minor boys.
And if you don't know the answer to that,
you can say, "I don't know"?
A. I don't know.

Q. Okay.
Now in the spring of 1992 you again warned
Father Kos not to have boys at the rectory, including
sleeping overnight, didn't you?
A. That's correct.

Q. And you again did not issue a statement to
the parish and to the staff, ordering that this practice
stop, and advising the parents that you did not approve of
that practice. You didn't do that? [7783]
A. I had no reason to do that.

Q. But you didn't do that.
A. I had to reason to do it.

Q. But you didn't do that, did you?
A. I had no reason, no.

Q. You didn't do it, and that is a probably you
didn't do it.
A. No.

Q. Is that right?
A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.
And don't we know from this case that
Father Kos returned to the parish and sexually abused minor
boys?
A. I have no knowledge of that.

Q. Now, you were on the Personnel Board during
the time that -- Exhibit 158 is the discussion of Brenda
Keller. "It looked like a textbook case of a problem.
We have allegation brought against Father Kos, but it is
still strongly suggested that we take some action."
Were you aware of the -- that Personnel
Board meeting?
A. No.

Q. Now this was after you had at least warned
Father Kos on one occasion; was it not? [7784]
A. And while he was going to Dr. Jaeckle, yes.

Q. Okay.
Now on April the 10th, which is just seven
days after that meeting, according to Exhibit 160, and you
are at that meeting; are you not?
A. That's correct.

Q. After -- it states, "After some discussion
about Father Kos in Ennis, it was suggested that we remove
him, the first of June, from St. John's in Ennis and give
him an opportunity to get some help and consider his
future."
Now you've already established with
Mr. Turley that he was not removed at that time. That is
when you decided to send him to St. Luke's.
A. To St. Luke's.

Q. And then ten days later, according to
Exhibit 161 -- and you're also at that meeting; are you
not?
A. Yes.

Q. It talks about arrange -- appointment being
made at St. Luke's. "It is suggested that Rudy be told
about this appointment and that he will not be returning to
the parish."
But that doesn't happen, did it?
A. That's right, because of the evaluation. [7785]

Q. Okay.
And then according to Exhibit 162, on May
the 1st, 1992, this is ten days later, you and
Monsignor Rehkemper report on your visit with Father Rudy.
And I guess this would be the second warning that you gave
to him. "He was nervous about this visit. He has really
been working on his problem, which he describes as a kind
of transference. He is getting calls now that he is
neglecting the children he is close to. He feels he is
getting a handle on the problem."
So did you meet with Father Kos and did he
basically talk you out of it -- talk you out of removing
him?
A. No.

Q. Okay.
And then according to Exhibit 163 you're --
there again, this is May the 8th. And I think we're seven
days after the last visit. That is when he goes to
St. Luke's. And his visit is June 7th to the 12th.
A. That's correct.

Q. Now, I want to make sure that we understand,
Bishop Grahmann, Father Kos was at St. John's in Ennis
before he went to St. Luke's on June the 7th, 1992, and
when he came back from St. Luke's on June the 12th, he
returned to St. John's in Ennis; did he not? [7786]
A. That's correct.

Q. So if he was out of the parish, it was just
for that short period of time for this evaluation; is that
a fair statement?
A. I'm not sure. He may have taken some time
off.

Q. But that would be only point --
A. That's right.

Q. In other words, he wasn't actually removed
from the parish then sent back.
A. No.

Q. He continued to be pastor.
A. That's correct.

Q. He continued to serve at St. John's and he
continued to have access to these children; did he not?
A. He continued to be at St. John's.

Q. And then the last Personnel Board minutes
that we've been given is Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 164. That
is October the 22nd, 1992. And that is when he is given a
leave of absence and he is sent to the Paracletes; you're
aware of that?
A. That's correct.

Q. Now, when Father Kos came back from
St. Luke's you discussed the fact that he sat down, and
that is when you gave him his third warning. [7787]
A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.
Now after that warning, once again you
didn't send a letter or a notice to the parishioners at
St. John's and tell them that you did not want overnight
visits in the rectory with priests; you didn't do that once
again?
A. No, I saw no reason to.

Q. Okay.
Now, isn't there a visit about this whole
matter that you have neglected to tell us about? Didn't
you meet with Father Williams -- according to Exhibit 104,
which is a summary that was prepared, and Father Williams
stated was accurate, about the meetings regarding Father
Kos.
There is a meeting over here on August the
24th -- well, actually, June 1992 Father Williams speaks
with Monsignor Rehkemper. He is compiling his report,
which is a document, Exhibit 98, and it is addressed to
you, is it not, Bishop Grahmann?
A. Yes, it is.

Q. Okay.
But you testified that you never looked at
this report that Father Williams compiled, did you?
A. That's correct. [7788]

Q. So we're talking about Exhibit 98 which is
dated June the 5th, 1992. And it is addressed to you,
Bishop Grahmann, sending you a summary of everything that
he has seen and discussed with Monsignor Rehkemper about
Father Kos during the past year.
And he says, "I feel that, as my Bishop,
you're entitled to complete statement and that I" -- "and
that I have to be sure that you're fully informed. I feel
I owe it to everyone involved to make a complete and public
summary. I send this to you for whatever use you see fit
and I do not expect any official reply. I'm sending copies
to Monsignor Rehkemper and Henry Petters since they're both
mentioned in the document."
So only Exhibit 104, when he talks on -- on
June 1992 about speaking with Monsignor Rehkemper and
compiling his report, he is referring to Exhibit 98, isn't
he?
A. I don't know. I would imagine.

Q. Is it a possibly probably?
A. I really can't say.

Q. Okay.
And then in July of 1992 he speaks with
Monsignor Rehkemper who tells him that Father Kos does not
need to be removed. And he -- Father Williams then
subsequently sets up a meeting with you did; does he not? [7789]
A. That's correct.

Q. And he meets with you and you tell him that
you -- that Father Kos does not need to be removed, that
there is no red flags or warnings, and unless
Father Williams has something more to add, that this is
your position, that Father Kos does not need to be removed;
isn't that correct?
A. That's correct. After the evaluations,
that's correct.

Q. Okay.
And then next thing is about, a month or so
later, the first victim come forward; is that right?
A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.
Now, when Father Kos was removed in October
of 1992, the parish was never told the reason why he was
removed, were they?
A. That's -- except the letter that was read.

Q. But it didn't mention that he was being
removed because he had admitted to sexually abusing a
child; isn't that true?
A. No, it wasn't.

Q. And the parishioners -- well, after
Father Kos was removed and he was sent to the Paracletes,
isn't it true, Bishop Grahmann, that you returned to Dallas [7790]
and abused at least two of the plaintiffs in this case
after his removal?
A. I was not aware of that.

Q. Now the parishioners of the Diocese of
Dallas didn't learn about Father Kos and the fact that he
had sexually abused children, until this lawsuit was filed
in May of 1993. Up until that point they had no reason to
believe, did they, that Father Kos was a danger to
children?
A. Possibly not.

Q. Now, on the plethysmograph, we had talked
previously about this Exhibit No. 172 which is the
Conference on Priests and Pedophilia that the Dallas
Diocese put on in June of 1986.
You testified earlier that you had talked
with somebody about this plethysmograph that St. Luke's had
recommended to Father Kos; is that correct?
A. I'm not sure.

Q. And somebody had told you that the
plethysmograph was a new test and that it didn't have any
validity. Was that your testimony just a few minutes ago
when Mr. Turley was questioning you?
A. I'm not aware of the test. What is the test
about?

Q. The plethysmograph? [7791]
A. Yes, I don't --

Q. The penile plethysmograph?
A. Okay. Yes, Dr. Montana spoke to me.

Q. Right.
And I think you indicated that, based on
your talking with somebody, and you didn't tell us who,
that it was your understanding that it was a new test.
A. That's correct.

Q. All right.
Then I referenced Exhibit No. 172, which is
the June 1986 Conference on Sexual Abuse by the Dallas
Diocese, and there it says, "The plethysmograph examination
provides one of many data points utilized to discover the
numbers of paraphilias in which a single offender may be
involved. I'm of the opinion increasingly that no
deviancy travels by itself. If they get caught with one
type of behavior, my clinical impressions is that they
often have more they are hiding in the background."
And that is a reference, is it not, going
all the way back to 1981; is what this document says?
A. That's what it says, yes.

Q. So the plethysmograph was not a new test,
was it?
A. Relatively new.

Q. Relatively. [7792]
Now, Bishop Grahmann, if an applicant to the
seminary is an active homosexual who is sexually interested
in young boys, do you want that applicant to become a
priest?
A. If it is revealed beforehand, no.

Q. Okay.
If a candidate for ordination makes a
homosexual pass at another student, should that candidate
be ordained, until you've conducted an investigation and
you're satisfied that they can maintain a vow of celibacy
and chastity?
A. It depends on what the pass was.

Q. But wouldn't you want to satisfy yourself
that that candidate can, in fact, be celibate and chased
before you ordain them?
A. That's correct.

Q. If there is evidence that a candidate for
ordination is a sexually active homosexual, would you
ordain that man?
A. No.

Q. If a young priest has little boys sleeping
with him in his room almost every night, would you
investigate that behavior?
A. If it were brought to my attention, yes.

Q. And would that investigation not include [7793]
talking to the children and the parents of the children who
are involved and making sure that that practice stopped?
A. Possibly, or talk to the priest first.

Q. Okay.
Is that a possibly probably or probably
possibly?
A. Talk to the priest first.

Q. Okay.
And after you talk with the priest and you
found out that it was going on, wouldn't you conduct the
investigation that included talking to little boys and
their families and making sure that the practice stopped?
A. I would evaluate and make a decision.

Q. Okay.
And would that decision include talking with
the -- with the children who are involved, with their
parents and making sure that the practice stopped?
A. That is possible.

Q. Is that a possible or probably possible
or --
A. It is possible.

Q. -- possibly probably?
A. Possible.

Q. Okay.
Now, if a priest sets up his private [7794]
quarters, places where he lives, with games and toys and
candies and movies in order to attract young children to
his personal living quarters, that is not -- that is not
proper, is it, Bishop Grahmann?
A. No, it is not proper.

Q. Now, we've talked about the new policy that
the Diocese adopted on January the 1st, 1997, Plaintiff's
Exhibit No. 151. Bishop Grahmann, isn't it true that
there isn't anything in this policy that addresses
prevention?
A. This is an internal policy for the clergy
so that they would understand exactly what this is all
about. It is not a policy that deals with the aftereffect
or what happens afterwards. This policy doesn't --

Q. Or what happens before.
A. -- deal with that.

Q. It doesn't address prevention, isn't that a
fair statement?
A. Well, yes, it does. All of this
information here is information that speaks toward ultimate
prevention of child abuse.

Q. Well, now, Bishop, we've gone over this
policy in present good detail. It is triggered, is it
not, when there is an allegation of sexual abuse; isn't
that correct? [7795]
A. This is an internal thing. Yes, it is.

Q. Okay.
And by definition, when an allegation comes
up, that means sexual abuse has already happened.
A. It needs to be investigated. That's right.
An allegation.

Q. It needs to be investigated.
A. That's right.

Q. My question is: There isn't anything about
that policy that prevents sexual abuse from happening in
the first place, not in that policy?
A. Well, I'm not sure of that. The general
thrust of the policy is directed toward -- the tone of it
and everything is directed ultimately toward the prevention
of it.

Q. Could I see that so we can put it up on the
visual presenter?
You talk about implementing the policy and
you talk about definitions and sexual contact, "Sexual
abuse is contact between a cleric and a minor." There
isn't anything about that that addresses prevention, is
there?
A. The very topic speaks about prevention.

Q. That's what you're talking about.
A. That's right, -- [7796]

Q. The topic in it --
A. -- the whole theme of it all.

Q. What I'm talking about, I'm talking about
policies and procedures that are established in order to
prevent sexual abuse from occurring in the first place.
Is there anything --
A. The Code of Canon Law has something about
that already.

Q. Okay.
A. This specific policy does not have any
paragraphs that deal with --

Q. With prevention.
A. -- prevention

Q. Thank you.
This particular policy doesn't contain any
warnings and instructions to parishioners, does it?
A. That is correct.

Q. And it also does not acknowledge any of the
past sexual abuse that has occurred in this Diocese and
that the Diocese is well aware of.
A. That is correct.

Q. Now have you made an effort,
Bishop Grahmann, to determine precisely what the history
has been in this Diocese of the sexual abuse of children
and how that sexual abuse came about and occurred?
7797
MR. MATHIS: Objection A.
THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: To a degree --
Oh.
MR. MATHIS: Can I have a running objection on
this?
THE COURT: Yes.

Q. (BY MS. DEMAREST) I'm sorry, Bishop. You
said, "To a degree"?
A. Yes, to a degree I've done that.

Q. So you've looked into the situation --
you're aware of the fact that Father Kos was assigned to
All Saints in 1991, and that with him was another priest by
the name of Robert Peebles; you're aware of that?
A. Vaguely, yes.

Q. Okay.
Are you aware of the fact that both
Father Kos and Father Peebles were sexually abusing
children, at the same time, at All Saints Church?
A. I was not aware of that. No, I wasn't here.

MR. MATHIS: Objection. That assumes facts not
in evidence. It doesn't.
THE COURT: Response.
MS. DEMAREST: I think it is in evidence concerning
Father Peebles. [7798]

MR. MATHIS: No, not the way you worded the
question, it is not.
THE COURT: Okay, let's do this: Ladies and
Gentlemen of the Jury, please recall the evidence and the
testimony to best of your ability.

Q. (BY MS. DEMAREST) You're well aware, are
you not, Bishop Grahmann, that this priest, Robert Peebles,
abused many children in the Dallas Diocese before he was
removed in 1986; are you not?
A. No, I'm not. I was not here.

Q. Are you also aware of the fact that there
was a young priest who had not yet been ordained, who was a
deacon that was signed in 1981 with Father Kos and
Father Peebles at All Saints by the name of
Williams Hughes?
A. I don't know the name.

Q. Are you aware that he abused a thirteen year
old girl at St. Luke's in Irving, beginning in 1983?
A. I don't know anything about that.

Q. Are you aware of the fact that Father Kos
abused altar boys at All Saints Church the entire time he
was there?
A. No, I'm not aware of that.

Q. That he did this on church property?
A. I'm not aware of it. [7799]

Q. Are you aware of the fact that Father Kos
abused altar boys at St. Luke's in Irving?
A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. And that he did it on church property?
A. No.

Q. Are you aware of the fact that Father Kos
abused altar boys in St. John's in Ennis and that he did
that on church property?
A. No, I'm not aware of that.

Q. Are you aware, from his testimony, that
Father Kos got boys drunk --
A. No, I'm not aware of that.

Q. -- in his room at the rectory at All Saints,
St. Luke's and St. John's; are you aware of that?
A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. That he gave them drugs on church property
at All Saints, St. Luke's and St. John's; are you aware of
that?
A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. Now, Bishop Grahmann, would you agree with
me that a priest has a great deal of access to young
children through his ministry?
A. Yes and no.

Q. Through his ministry, if you -- if a priest
desires to have access to children, the children there are [7800]
and available; are they not?
A. That is possible, yes.

Q. And that according to the evidence that we
have in this case, there hasn't been anything placed in
writing, other than the Code of Canon Law and the personnel
policies and, now, this new sex abuse policy dealing with
allegations, that really places restriction -- restrictions
on his behavior concerning minors? There is really not
anything other than that that says anything about his
behavior?
A. I don't get the question.

Q. I'm sorry.
We've talked about the Code of Canon Law and
what it says about a priest's behavior.
A. Behavior, that's correct.

Q. We've talked about the fact that the Dallas
Diocese has personnel policies that were passed in 1988,
and some of those personnel policies -- that is Exhibit
110. And some of those personnel policies might deal with
behavior.
A. That is correct.

Q. We also know that Bishop Tschoepe passed a
policy on May the 10th, 1988, according to Exhibit 111,
that talked about reporting allegations to the authorities.
A. That is -- that is correct. [7801]

Q. Now we know, according to Exhibit 151, that
you've adopted a policy on January the 1st, 1997 that deals
with what to do when allegations are received.
A. That's correct.

Q. Other than this and the Code of Canon Law
there isn't anything that has been placed in writing that
parishioners would have access to that would place
restrictions on a priest's behavior.
A. No.

Q. Now we know that beginning --

THE COURT: Good stopping spot?
MS. DEMAREST: Yes.

THE COURT: Let's go on and break for lunch. You
all, I'm trying to cut it down. Let's try to -- let's try
to do it at twenty till. So, in other words, about an hour
and five minutes for lunch, okay?

(Whereupon the jury was excused from the
courtroom, for the lunch break, and thereafter the
following was had:)

THE COURT: Let me see the attorneys up here just
a second.

(Whereupon there was a sidebar conference, out of
the hearing of the jury, and thereafter the following was
had, in the hearing of the jury, as follows:).
(Whereupon the jury was brought into the [7802]
courtroom and thereafter the following was had:)

THE COURT: Ms. Demarest.
MS. DEMAREST: Thank you.

Q. (BY MS. DEMAREST) Good afternoon,
Bishop Grahmann.
A. Good afternoon.

Q. I really don't think I have that much, so
we'll try to speed this thing along.
Bishop Grahmann, it appears from the record
that the first documented warning to Rudy Kos was shown on
Exhibit 78, which is the typing of a handwritten note that
Monsignor Rehkemper made on January the 15th, 1996 where he
said, "I told him to avoid anything that would give rise to
scandal, not to hug the kids, not to let them spend the
night in the rectory, because people easily draw the wrong
conclusion."
So that sounds like it is a warning or a
caution, "don't do it", doesn't that, to you?
A. Sounds like it, uh-huh.

Q. And then we talked about the Personnel
Committee meeting of August the 22nd, 1996, which is
Exhibit 78, where the Personnel Committee said, "Let's
actually send a letter saying" -- "specifying that he is no
longer to have young men overnight in the rectory at [7803]
St. Luke's or any other place where he might officially be
assigned, under threat of suspension."
Now, that is getting to be a very specific
warning, isn't it?
A. It could be, yes.

Q. Okay.
And then, according to Exhibit 79A, this is
again a typewritten rendition of Monsignor Rehkemper's
note. On August the 28th, 1986 there was actually a
meeting of Father Kos, Father Duca, Father Clayton,
Monsignor Kamel where Monsignor Rehkemper says, "If anyone
other than his mother or father or adopted son stay the
night in the rectory, in the future, he would be running
the risk of being suspend. He understood we are not
accusing him of any wrongdoing, but it was imprudent and
the Diocese could be jeopardized by a legal suit if anyone
wanted to make an issue of it."
Now, that is very specific warning,
personally delivered in the presence of witnesses, to
Father Kos?
A. It seems that, yes.

Q. Okay.
Now, we've -- we've looked at these red flag
warnings, Bishop. And I wanted to ask you this -- before I
get that, we also know, do we not, that according to [7804]
Exhibit 83, on April the 28th, 1988 Father Kos was --
applied to be pastor at Ennis and was cautioned about his
showing favoritism to certain young men, as he will be in a
small parish and, therefore, being subject to being watched
and criticized most sternly."
So he is actually made pastor in Ennis in
1988. Now isn't it true, Bishop Grahmann, that nothing
specific was done, after Father Kos was sent over to Ennis,
to make sure that he did not have children overnight in the
rectory?
A. I'm not aware of anything.

Q. Okay.
Looking at these red flag warnings, it
appears -- we can -- we can agree, can we not, that he was
specifically cautioned and warned, according to Exhibit 78,
on January the 15th, the Personnel Committee, according to
Exhibit 78, decided that a letter should be sent, and that
he specifically was warned by Monsignor Rehkemper, on
August the 28th, 1986 that he should not have boys in the
rectory.
Can we agree that by that time his superiors
in the church had decided that the practice needed to stop
or he was going to be suspended?
A. I don't know what their final decision was.
I was not here. [7805]

Q. Okay.
But it appears that he had been threatened
with suspension if this continued.
A. It appeared that.

Q. And -- and we can point to no evidence that
the Diocese did anything to try to make sure that
Father Kos obeyed that warning and did not have boys
overnight in the rectory once he was at Ennis. We don't
see anything in the file about that, do we?
A. I don't know anything about that.

Q. We -- we had testimony in this case from the
school superintendent and the -- and her assistants that
they reported to Monsignor Rehkemper, in 1989 and '90, that
Father Kos had taken boys overnight for trips.
We've talked about the letter from
Mrs. Allen, dated June of 1989, where she warns about that.
And then in April of 1992 Father Torres, who had been the
assistant pastor at St. John's from 1989 to 1991, comes
forward and tells Monsignor Rehkemper he has had boys there
every night, three or four nights a week, from 1988 -- I'm
sorry. He was there in 1988 -- from 1988 to 1991.
You warned him three times, I think you
testified to us about --
A. That's right.

Q. -- concerning the same practice; is that [7806]
correct?
A. That's correct.

Q. Now, can't we conclude, Bishop, that for
whatever reason, Rudy Kos was allowed to ignore these
warnings that were specifically given to him by his church
superiors, for seven years, and he didn't suffer a
consequence of those warnings until a victim came forward
and Father Kos admitted that he abused that victim?
A. No, that is not exactly correct, because I
intervened in 1991 --

Q. Well --
A. -- at the end of September.

Q. -- we talked about --
A. So something was done before --

Q. -- we talked about you sending him to
Dr. Jaeckle and sending him to Brenda Keller and sending
him to St. Luke's.
A. That's correct.

Q. But what I'm saying is, from the standpoint
of whether or not he was stopped completely from having
boys overnight in the rectory, that did not completely stop
until he was removed in October, when a victim came forward
and Father Kos admitted that he had sexually abused that
victim.
A. I would have to say it probably stopped [7807]
before that, because I gave him a warning in June when I
saw him, and there were no complaints after that. I even
checked, and there were none that had boys staying at the
rectory.

Q. What if there has been testimony in this
case that the boys continued to stay in the rectory?
Wouldn't my statement be correct that Father Kos was
allowed to ignore warnings from his church superiors, for
seven years, without consequence? And if I'm not correct,
you can say I'm not correct.
A. Yes. I'm not sure. I'm not sure.

Q. You're not sure. Thank you very much.
And, in fact, there was something very
unusual about that victim coming toward, wasn't there,
Bishop Grahmann?
A. I'm not aware of anything unusual.

Q. For the first time in the history of the
Dallas Diocese, a victim came forward said, "I have hired
an attorney". That had never happened before, had it?
A. I'm not sure.

Q. Now, Bishop Grahmann, you've been in and out
of this trial, as we've discussed during Mr. Turley's
examination; have you not?
A. Yes.

Q. You don't have any reason to doubt the fact [7808]
that these are very, very good Catholic families that have
had their kids abused; isn't that true?
A. I could say neither way. I don't know that.

Q. You don't know that.
A. I don't have that information.

Q. Wouldn't it be important for you to find out
that these are good Catholic -- or were good Catholic
families when their children were abused?
A. I don't know if I could find that out. I
don't know how to find it out.

Q. Well, are you aware of the fact that some of
these people were the founders of parishes?
A. No, I'm not aware of that.

Q. That they were major supporters of the
church, in terms of the financial contributions that they
gave and the volunteer work that they did?
A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. That these were good Catholic boys.
A. I'm not aware of that. I can't say either
way.

Q. That they were altar servers, were you aware
of that?
A. No, I wasn't aware of that.

Q. That they were devout, that they believed in
their religion and they trusted the hierarchy and trusted [7809]
priests?
A. I was not aware of that.

Q. Do you understand that?
A. I was not aware of that.

Q. Now, Bishop Grahmann, you're not blaming the
boys in this case for being sexually abused by Rudy Kos,
are you?
A. No, I'm not.

Q. And you're not blaming the parents for
trusting the church and for trusting the priests and for
allowing that priest to have access to their children?
You're not blaming them?
A. Not necessarily.

Q. Well, I need to know whether you are or not.
A. No.

Q. Okay.
Were you here for the testimony of
Dr. Gutierrez, the doctor who examined my clients,
"John Doe #5" , "John Doe #7" and "John Doe #11"?
A. Yes, I believe I was.

Q. Do you accept the fact, Bishop Grahmann,
that sexual abuse of these boys by Father Kos has been
terribly damaging to them, as described by Dr. Gutierrez?
Do you accept that fact?
A. I don't believe that. I'm not an expert in [7810]
those fields.

Q. Well, you heard the testimony about what has
happened to these boys. Do you accept the fact that
they've been damaged as a result of this abuse?
A. I accept they've been damaged.

Q. Bishop Grahmann, what do you say to these
families about the tragedy that has befallen them? Do you
realize that there is one family who has had three sons
abused by Father Kos? Do you realize that?
A. Yes.

Q. Do you realize that there is one family that
has had both of their sons abused by two separate priests
of the Dallas Diocese; do you realize that?
A. No, I'm not aware of that.

Q. What do you say to these families who have
had this tragedy gee come into their lives as a result of a
priest of the Dallas Diocese? What do you say to these
families?
A. I don't know. I'm profoundly saddened that
these incidents took place.

Q. Okay.
Bishop Grahmann, the policy that the Diocese
adopted in January 1997, Exhibit 151, states that, "The
Diocese of Dallas will provide any victim of sexual
misconduct, by one of its clerics, with pastoral assistance [7811]
to enable healing. The assistance for an individual victim
will vary with the circumstances and support from the
Diocese will be determined in proportion to the defined
course of therapy."
If the testimony in this case has been that
these young men will require extensive therapy, is that
what is contemplated by this policy?
A. I'm not sure.

Q. Okay.
If there has been testimony that one of my
clients, "John Doe #11", requires as much as $560,000 in
future therapy in order to be able to lead a decent life,
is that the kind of assistance that is contemplated by this
policy?
A. I'm not sure.

Q. Thank you very much, Bishop Grahmann.
A. Thank you