Testimony of Bishop Charles V. Grahmann – Part 6

Cross-Examination of Bishop Grahmann by Randal Mathis
Redirect Examination of Bishop Grahmann by Windle Turley
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 MR. MATHIS:

Q. Okay, Bishop --

THE COURT: Sylvia, can you move this?
I can't see you, Mr. Mathis, and I need -- I need
to be able to see you.
MS. DEMAREST: I'm sorry. I can fix that.
THE COURT: Thank you. [7812]

MR. MATHIS: That's fine.
THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. MATHIS: Are you on okay on the water?
THE WITNESS: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. MATHIS) Bishop, first of all, let me
ask you --
MS. DEMAREST: I'm sorry, Randy. I put it down.
Let me get it.

Q. (BY MR. MATHIS) Bishop, first of all -- and
I don't want to get out of order here. But, first of all,
what is the current policy here in Dallas, in this Diocese,
as you have told it to the priests, on who can and cannot
stay overnight in the rectories of the churches here?
A. Only the parents or family members, another
priest or seminarians.

Q. All right.
So today, in 1997, all of the priests in the
Dallas Diocese know children, teenagers staying overnight
is not permitted?
A. Precisely, not permitted.

Q. Now, Bishop, let me back up a little bit and
first ask you about you. I don't think that we asked you,
other than you were asked when you were previously a Bishop
in Victoria.
Tell us, if you would, where you were born [7813]
and raised.
A. I was born in the big city of Haletsville,
Texas. It has two suburbs. One hundred miles to the west
is San Antonio, one hundred miles to the east is Houston.
(laughter in the courtroom.

Q. Okay.
A. Very bad suburbs.

Q. How big -- where that is located? I mean --
A. It is at the halfway point, about one
hundred miles from either one of those cities, on Highway
77, intersecting with Highway 90A.

Q. Okay.
I think we've heard some earlier testimony
about your family, but tell us a little bit about your
family and involvement with the Catholic Church.
A. Yes.
It is -- first of all, the community is a
small German, Czech community of about two thousand, eight
hundred and seventy people. It has remained that since
1940.
And I come from -- I'm a second-generation
born German born in that community. My parents were
first-generation born in that community. I was
second-generation. And that is where I was born and grew
up and received my elementary education. [7814]

Q. Okay.
Do you have brothers and sisters?
A. Oh, yes. We have a football team. We're
six boys and five girls.

Q. Have other members of your family pursued a
religious career?
A. Yes. My oldest brother became a -- a
Brother of LaSalle, a Christian brother, and they -- they
teach or they are in charge of the College of Santa Fe.
And that is where he is stationed.
And my next two sisters became religious
sisters. And their mother house is in Victoria, Texas.
And they have been classroom teachers.

Q. Okay. You said next two sisters?
A. Yes, the next two.

Q. All right.
Now as I understand it, you were -- well,
let me ask you about your education first.
Where did you go after high school?
A. I stayed at St. John's Seminary. The high
school department was on the same campus as the college and
theology department was. So I went to the high school,
seminary there and I went to the college level seminary
there. And then for the theology, a new campus was
purchased. And I went my four years of theology at the [7815]
other campus.

Q. And after completion of that study, were you
ordained as a priest at the time?
A. I was ordained on St. Patrick's Day, being a
German, on March the 17th, 1956.

Q. Okay. Was there any further formal
schooling after that?
A. Yes. I did some schooling. I ended up
getting a Masters Degree in Education, because I was
stationed at a school and primary in administration.

Q. What year was it that you became Bishop of
Victoria?
A. I became Bishop on May the 29th, 1982.

Q. Had you been a priest within that Diocese
before you were made Bishop?
A. At one time I was, yes, in one of the
communities there, in the town of Hilkom.

Q. Was that diocese kind of carved out of the
San Antonio Diocese?
A. Yes. The majority portion of it was. A
county or so was taken from Houston and another county from
Corpus Christi.

Q. Okay. So, in that sense, it was a little
bit like Tyler was carved out of the Dallas Diocese a few
years ago. [7816]
A. That's correct. That's correct.

Q. Now, when you were first appointed to
Dallas, what year was that?
A. The appointment was made in December of
1989.

Q. And what was the technical appointment?
Were you -- were you Bishop, then or what was it called?
A. I was the Bishop of the Diocese of Victoria.
I was appointed Coadjutor Bishop of the Diocese of Dallas
in view of the fact that the present bishop was going
retire.

Q. All right. And that is Bishop Tschoepe?
A. Bishop Tschoepe, that's correct.

Q. All right.
So did you take, essentially, full office as
Bishop here, on that date?
A. Yes.

Q. All right.
Now when you came to Dallas did you already
know Monsignor Kamel at the time you first moved here?
A. I knew him. He was in the class --
vaguely, though. He was in several classes ahead of me,
for a number of years, in San Antonio, at the Theology
Level Department.

Q. All right. [7817]
But you -- you knew who he was --
A. I know who he was.

Q. -- his history, generally, in the church.
A. That's correct.

Q. All right.
Had you known Bishop Tschoepe before you
moved here?
A. Not really. I may have met him somewhere,
maybe, I don't know.

Q. Okay. Had you known Monsignor Rehkemper
before you moved here?
A. On the same level that I knew
Monsignor Kamel. He attended that same theology.

Q. Okay.
When did you first, if you remember, meet
Rudy Kos?
A. Gee, I don't know. It -- it could have been
at the baccalaureate mass at the end of May at Ennis, but
I'm not sure whether I went there that year or the
following year.

Q. Okay.
If it was that year, we would be talking
about May of 1991?
A. May of 1990, but I'm not sure. It could
have been 1991. [7818]

Q. Okay.
When was it that Father Williams, who was
assigned down in Ennis with Rudy Kos, when was it that he
first voiced a concern to you?
A. When he came to me at the end of September
in 1991.

Q. All right.
And prior to that time you had not had any
report of any concern or improper behavior by Rudy Kos?
A. I had no report whatsoever.

Q. Okay.
What was it -- and I want to just kind of
chronologically go through this, from here to the end. It
is not very far to the end. But what was it that the
Father Williams told you?
A. He came in and he raised a concern that all
of these kids were hanging around the rectory constantly,
and that some of them were spending the night there.

Q. Did he tell you the ages of the people
involved?
A. He said young -- young boys.

Q. Okay.
Where did that discussion take place?
A. In my office on Lemmon Avenue.

Q. All right. [7819]
So he came here from Ennis?
A. That's correct.

Q. How long a discussion was it?
A. Perhaps a half an hour.

Q. After that, after he had left -- well, was
anybody else involved in that meeting, other than to two of
you?
A. No, just myself.

Q. Okay.
After he left did you talk to anybody else
about it?
A. I called Father Kos and made an appointment
with him. And I talked to Monsignor Rehkemper.

Q. Okay.
When you talked to Monsignor Rehkemper, what
did he tell you about Kos?
A. He said that there had been concerns raised
in the past. And that is all he told me and in that level.

Q. Concerns about --
A. About the children hanging around the
rectory and some of them spending the night.

Q. All right.
And then you said you made an appointment to
talk to Rudy Kos?
A. That's correct. [7820]

Q. Okay.
Was that an appointment for him to come in
to the Diocese's office?
A. He came in to see me, within days.

Q. Okay. Tell us about that conversation.
A. Okay.
I brought him into my office and I told him
point blank that Father Williams had been in to see me and
laid out before me the fact that all of these young people
were hanging around the rectory and some of them were
spending the night there. And I asked him if that was
true. And he said yes. And I said, "Okay, this has to
stop. No more".

Q. Okay.
Was there another meeting between you and
Williams in between that time and the time that he went to
see Dr. Jaeckle?
A. No. That -- he -- he met with
Monsignor Rehkemper, I believe, because I had asked
Monsignor Rehkemper to meet with Father Williams and to get
the information from him and then to send him to
Dr. Jaeckle.

Q. Okay.
That was kind of going to be my next
question. Is that what precipitated Monsignor Rehkemper [7821]
arranging for him to go see Dr. Jaeckle?
A. Oh, yes, I -- I precipitated that.

Q. All right.
So at that point we're here the latter part
of 1991?
A. That's correct.

Q. All right.
Now after Rudy Kos went to Dr. Jaeckle, I
think that the testimony has been six or eight times, did
you receive back word as to Dr. Jaeckle's conclusion?
A. Yes. Monsignor Rehkemper delivered them to
me, because I tried keep on top of that and make sure that
-- that something was going on as a response to -- to my
precipitating it. And his indication to me was, from
Monsignor Rehkemper, that Dr. Jaeckle found no evidence of
-- of him molesting children.

Q. All right.
At that point, Bishop Grahmann, what did you
think you were dealing with with Rudy Kos?
A. I really had no idea what I was dealing
with, but not having an idea, I still was very careful
about doing something, because I wanted something to
happen. And it began to happen then, first of all, with
him going to Dr. Jaeckle.

Q. All right. [7822]
If Dr. Jaeckle's report back to you had been
that he found evidence of child abuse or was suspicious of
child abuse, what would you have done at that point?
A. Immediately pulled him out and turned it
over to the Blue Ribbon Committee.

Q. All right.
Now, Dr. Jaeckle, we know from prior
testimony, his initial meetings with Rudy Kos ended in
January of 1992.
When was it that you next heard from Father
Williams, down in Ennis, about Kos?
A. In early March of Robert Williams called me
again and wanted to see me.

Q. Okay. So about --
A. Yes, in early March.

Q. So a little over two months had gone by.
A. That's correct.

Q. All right.
What did Father Williams say?
A. He came in to see me. I was alone with him.
And he told me that Rudy Kos is still seeing these young
people. And I asked him, "Are they coming to the
rectory?" And he said, "No, he is seeing them in their
homes. He is babysitting for them." I says, "Are you
sure of that?" He said, "Well, I think so. He must be [7823]
seeing them somewhere."
But he also said, "Some of them have drifted
back to the rectory. Last week", he said, "there were two
boys hanging around the rectory." I says, "Are you sure of
that?" He said, "Yes".

Q. What did you know about Robert Williams at
that point?
A. Well, I had known that he had -- first of
all, was a convert to Catholicism, that he had studied for
the priesthood, that he had gotten a degree in psychology,
I think. And that is probably about all that I really knew
about him.

Q. All right.
Now did you do anything in response to
Father Williams coming to see you that second time?
A. Immediately I called for an appointment with
Rudy Kos.

Q. Okay.
And did he come in to see you?
A. Came in to see me within days.

Q. That was back at the Diocese's office?
A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.
Tell us about that conversation between you
and Rudy. [7824]
A. He came in to see me. He was a bit nervous.
And I said to him that, "Father Williams has reported to me
that young people are again hanging around the rectory. Is
that true?" And he tried to deny it, at first, but then he
said, "Yes, they have".

Q. What did you do in response the that?
A. Well, first of all, I asked him also, "Is
there something going on here?", meaning that -- he knew
what I meant, anything sexually going on here. And he
said, "No", he denied that. And I said "Okay, you
violated my direction of last year and I'm going to send
you off to St. Luke's Institute for a complete evaluation".

Q. All right.
Now up to that point had Dr. Jaeckle given
any indication that his feelings about Rudy Kos had changed
at all?
A. Not at all.

Q. All right.
Now, you said that you then made the
appointment or had someone make the appointment?
A. Monsignor Rehkemper made the appointments.

Q. And this was for him to go to Maryland to
St. Luke's Institute?
A. That's correct.

Q. All right. [7825]
Now did Rudy ultimately go to St. Luke's for
that evaluation?
A. Yes, he did. He didn't want to go, but I
made him go.

Q. All right.
In conjunction with his going to St. Luke's,
you were asked earlier about Father Williams' -- that long
letter he wrote?
A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. That ten or twelve pages?
A. That's correct.

Q. Was that provided to St. Luke's as part of
the information?
A. That -- that was the basis -- the
information, written information that St. Luke's had at
hand.

Q. Okay. All right.
Now Kos was at St. Luke's for how, long
about a week?
A. About a week.

Q. Okay.
At the conclusion of the week there, how was
the first report from St. Luke's to the Diocese handled?
A. First of all, since Monsignor Rehkemper was
the designated person responsible for this, I sent him to [7826]
be present for the final evaluation.

Q. Okay.
You know, before I ask you about the results
of that, am I correct that up until that point Rudy, since
you had been in Dallas, Rudy had -- or since you had been
-- had talked with Williams, Father Williams had been the
assistant there in Ennis?
A. That's correct. He was the assistant.

Q. Okay. All right.
So you sent Father Rehkemper up to Maryland
to get a report, receive a verbal report?
A. That's correct.

Q. When he came back how did you -- you learn
what the results were?
A. He met with me and he shared with me the
fact that he met with four or five doctors, and Rudy Kos
present and himself present, and I think the meeting was
about an hour and-a-half long. And they discussed at
length everything that went on in the tests that were made,
etcetera, etcetera, and the results of that. And he summed
up and said, first of all, that they did discover some
immature behavior in him, sexual behavior in him.
But I was very interested in the pedophile
thing, because that's why I really sent him there. And he
said to me, "They did not uncover any evidence, from their [7827]
tests, of -- of child abuse."

Q. Okay. And this is what Rehkemper was
conveying to you?
A. He was conveying that to me.

Q. All right.
Now did you subsequently have a telephone
conversation with Dr. Montana?
A. Yes. Sometime after that I got a telephone
call from Dr. Montana.

Q. Okay.
Was the telephone call from Dr. Montana, did
you place a call to him or did he call you?
A. No, he called me.

Q. Okay.
And this was before the written report
arrived?
A. That's correct.

Q. All right.
Tell us what he said in -- and what was said
in that conversation between the two of you.
A. Well --

MR. TURLEY: Your Honor, I want, for the record,
to raise our objection to the continuing hearsay. I know
the Court has previously considered this matter.
THE COURT: Okay. [7828]

MR. TURLEY: But I do object to the hearsay.
THE COURT: Okay.
The objection overruled. Go ahead.
MR. MATHIS: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. MATHIS) Go ahead.
A. First of all, I was a little bit taken aback
by the results of all of that when Monsignor Rehkemper gave
them to me. In fact, I was disappointed, because I was
hoping that this would really tell the story and that I
would have some evidence to use immediately, professional
evidence and a wide body of professional evidence.
And he told me -- he was the one who made
the call. I didn't place the call. He was the one who
called me to report that the report was being written. I
asked him on the phone, "Is there pedophilia?" And his
answer to me was the same that he gave to
Monsignor Rehkemper, that from the tests, no evidence was
uncovered of child abuse.

Q. From that conversation, from that statement,
what did you conclude about Rudy Kos and whether it was
okay to continue to let him work?
A. Well, what could I conclude? There was no
hard evidence that he was a child abuser. There was no
hard evidence before me. So, in a sense, my hands were
tied, because I had no hard evidence. And I had gone [7829]
through Dr. Jaeckle and St. Luke's Institute and got no
hard evidence of it, so there was no other decision that I
could make.

Q. At that point, in view of Jaeckle and
St. Luke's, were you in the position of the indication
being you had an immaturity problem to deal with the guy --

MS. DEMAREST: Your Honor, I object to the leading
nature of that question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Rephrase.
MR. MATHIS: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. MATHIS) Well, go ahead, then, and
amplify what your conclusion was. I mean, you continued to
let Rudy Kos work, right?
A. Yes. My conclusion was, at the
recommendation from St. Luke's Institute, that he continue
therapy.

Q. Okay.
A. And so I wanted him to continue therapy with
Dr. Jaeckle then, because Dr. Jaeckle had also discovered
sexual immaturity in him.

Q. Okay.
A. And so I didn't see a great deal of
difference in that. So I wanted him to continue that
therapy, but at the same time I allowed him to go back to [7830]
Ennis.

Q. Did you understand sexual immaturity to be
something totally different than pedophilia?
A. Precisely.

Q. All right. All right.
Now, there was discussion, as I understand
it, between you and Dr. Montana, about this plethysmograph
test.
A. That's correct.

Q. Explain to us what that discussion was and
why you included not to have Rudy take that test.
A. He indicated there was another kind of test
that he could be subjected to. And I asked him about the
test. He told me it was a new test, relatively new, that,
secondly, it was for hardened sexual criminals, that is
what it was designed for, and thirdly he said, "It is also
very inconclusive." And then he told him I had some morals
problems with subjecting any human being to that kind of a
test.

Q. All right.
Bishop, if you had thought, after Dr.
Jaeckle's opinion and St. Luke's opinion, that you were
dealing with a pedophile and there was a risk to anybody,
other than whatever your morale objection was to the test,
is there any reason why you could not have removed Rudy or [7831]
sent him to another doctor or whatever appeared it called
for?
A. Well, I could have, sure.

Q. Did you think it was necessary?
A. No. I had gone through two levels already
and basically got the same answer, so I didn't. And I had
great faith in St. Luke's Institute. And I said to myself,
"If they can't discovery this, who can?"

Q. Okay.
A. And so I was convinced, then, that I felt
needed not to send him on to anybody else.

Q. All right.
Bishop, after all of this arose, "John Doe #1"
came forward, what did you did, as far as -- and by "you",
I mean the Diocese. What did you do, as far as asking
people to come forward and advising people that you would
make counseling available if they had been abused by Kos,
or anyone else, for that matter?
A. Okay. I published a statement in the
newspapers.

Q. That is the one that was talked about
earlier?
A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.
A. And also the parish bulletins. But I [7832]
really wanted to alert anyone to come forward. I also
wanted anybody with any information, to come forward,
police officers, anybody, any teachers that had any
information of any kind, I wanted them to come forward.
But, also, it was designed to alert parents that they would
come forward if there was a suspicion of this.

Q. Bishop, the new policy that has been
implemented that we've talked about earlier, let me ask you
a few things just kind of surrounding that.
Are priests of the Dallas Diocese now
permitted to take children -- and I'm defining children as
just anybody that is a minor, on unsupervised, overnight
trips where there is not another adult present?
A. No, absolutely not.

Q. And has that been made known by you to all
of the priests here in the Diocese?
A. In one of the sessions workshops we had,
yes.

Q. All right.
That was going to be my next question.
What have you done, as far as -- have you
sent anybody to workshops? Tell us about those.
A. Yes. I've continually -- because I'm a firm
believer that this whole area is -- is under a lot of
pressure because of the -- the glut of information that is [7833]
coming forward now. And we have seen, even locally --

MR. TURLEY: Objection, nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MATHIS) Let me rephrase it a little
bit.
Have you sent anybody from the Dallas
Diocese for continuing education on the subject of child
abuse?
A. Yes, I have.

Q. All right.
First, who have you sent to such continuing
education that was outside of the city, you know, the --
A. Yes. I sent Monsignor Broderick and
Monsignor Gardner to Kansas City for a workshop there. I
also sent both of them, I think and Monsignor Bell, to a
work show that was held about a year ago in Fort Worth.
And I'm not sure if there is any other
one -- the Horizon. but I'm making sure that any
workshops that are available on this, that they go to it,
because the knowledge is exploding about this whole issue.

Q. Okay.
So you have -- as far as the administrative
people in the Diocese, the Vicar General has been sent to
these things, the Judicial Vicar and the head of Catholic
Charities? [7834]
A. That's correct.

Q. All right.
Now has there also been a mandatory for all
priests of the Dallas Diocese training held here?
A. Yes, there is, mandatory.

Q. Tell us about that, if you would.
A. Well, we had a day-long workshop for the
priests of the Diocese, and it was mandatory for them to
come, in which we explained, carefully and precisely, the
policies.

Q. Now, Bishop, the new policy that has been
talked about, that policy is a combination, is it not, of a
sexual misconduct policy and a general sexual harassment
policy for all employees?
A. That is correct.

Q. All right.
Now, have such policy been implemented in
other dioceses around the country?
A. Yes, they have.

Q. All right.
Now I realize that you're not the author of
this policy and, really, that is more Father Bell's
bailiwick.
A. That's correct.

Q. Is it your understanding that your new [7835]
policy is a --

MR. TURLEY: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Rephrase.

Q. (BY MR. MATHIS ) On what is your new policy
based?
A. On what is it based?

Q. Yes.
A. It's based on a lot of things, a lot of
things that have developed over the years. It is an
expansion of a lot of things. It deals with all of this
and it deals with the conduct of the clergy, it also deals
with the conduct of all of the other people who work in the
life of the church.

Q. Now, has the idea been, in part, for it to
be comprehensive in nature?
A. Yes, very comprehensive.

Q. It applies -- one part of the policy applies
to members of the clergy, but it also applies to other
people, as well.
A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.
Bishop, how has that new policy been
publicized to the laity?
A. Well, first of all, it was publicized in our [7836]
newspaper.

Q. Okay.
What -- you need to explain by "your
newspaper", what you mean.
A. Oh, well, the Texas Catholic newspaper comes
out every other week. And in early January, those policies
were published in the paper. We've had workshops not only
for the clergy, we've also had them for the deacons in the
Diocese, we've had them for the schools, the teachers and
the personnel for schools in the Diocese, we've had them,
also, for those people who teach in religious education
programs or the Sunday School programs.

Q. Okay.
And combining all of those people together,
that is pretty much all of the -- the people that are out
there working within the Diocese --
A. That's right.

Q. -- in all of these churches in the Diocese?
A. That's correct. The only ones we're still
working on are to deal with the volunteers.

Q. Is the -- is there even going to be
something done with regard to volunteers?
A. Oh, yes.

Q. All right.
A. We're going to try to develop a policy for [7837]
volunteers, also.

Q. All right.
So as we sit here today and we look out at
the Catholic community and the Dallas Diocese, whether it
is the churches or the schools or whatever, the teachers,
clergy, people that work in these churches, are they far,
far better educated about this than they were --

MR. TURLEY: Objection, leading.
MR. MATHIS: -- even a few years ago.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Rephrase.

Q. (BY MR. MATHIS) Could you describe the level
of awareness and education of people in the Diocese today
versus even four or five years ago?
A. I consider it monumental, because five or
six years ago that level was not there. The level in
society was not there, either. And it is continuing to
grow.

MR. TURLEY: Objection, nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MATHIS) Okay, Bishop. I think
that's all I have right now. Thank you very much.
A. Thank you.

Q. They have a right to ask some more questions
they want to. [7838]
A. That's correct.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. TURLEY:

Q. Bishop Grahmann, this so-called
comprehensive policy that you were just describing to
Mr. Mathis, that is the policy that you issued one hundred
and twenty days before this trial started, isn't it?
A. I don't know the dates.

Q. January 1st, 1997.
A. Yes, correct.

Q. That -- while you say that policy is
comprehensive, the fact of the matter is, as you told
Ms. Demarest this morning, there is nothing in that policy
to deal with prevention of sexual abuse, is there?
A. The theme of the policy itself is
prevention.

Q. There is nothing in the policy, Bishop --
A. That's correct.

Q. Thank you.
And, Bishop, there is nothing in the policy
that triggers it to go to work when there is a hint or
suspicion of sexual misconduct, is there? It require an
actual allegation of actual sexual misconduct; isn't that
true?
MR. MATHIS: Objection. That mischaracterizes [7839]
the evidence.
MR. TURLEY: Well, it doesn't.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
recall the evidence and the testimony to the best your
ability.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) It does not
mischaracterize, does it, Bishop; isn't that correct?
A. I don't understand.

Q. There is no element in that policy that
triggers it to go to work when there is a hint of sexual
misconduct. That policy is only activated when somebody
comes forward and says, "I have been abused", or somebody
sees somebody and says, "There is sexual abuse going on
here"?
A. In particular policy, no.

Q. Okay. In that regard, it is hardly
comprehensive, is it?
A. Oh, I think it is very comprehensive.

Q. And this volunteer's policy that you say
you're working on now, will we likely see that this
century?
A. You mean the 21st Century?

Q. This century, the one we're still in.
A. Oh, this century.
Oh, I hope, very shortly. [7840]

Q. Bishop, you say that the overnight trips
with the children are not permitted, but you've now clearly
communicated that to your priests and all of your priests
are aware of it.
A. They should be.

Q. Do I understand you would?
A. That's correct.

Q. That's right.
Now, do you understand the nature of
pedophile, Bishops? They don't obey rules. You understand
that, don't you?
A. I don't know that. I don't know that they
don't obey rules.

Q. You never could get Father Kos to obey your
rules, could you?
A. Well, but you said pedophiles. That means
all of them. I don't know that.

Q. Most pedophiles will not obey rules.
A. I don't know whether most do.

Q. Don't you know, Bishop, they're sick --
A. That's correct.
-- they have an addict, they have a sickness
there. They're sick people.
A. That's correct.

Q. They cannot stop preying on little children. [7841]
You know that, don't you?
A. I'm not a psychiatrist. I don't know that.

Q. And you know that the rules that you give to
these people don't work. Have you to have some other
fail-safe mechanism. And in this case, the fail-safe
mechanism is not to just tell the truth, "Don't take them
out of town", the fail-safe mechanism is to tell the
parents, "They're not supposed to go out of town". That
would be a pursuant policy, wouldn't it, Bishop?
A. Possibly.

Q. Well, Bishop, tell mean it would.
A. It possibly would. It possibly would be a
good policy.

Q. Bishop, you said you had some moral problems
about Father Kos being submitted to this plethysmograph?
I'm sorry, --
A. That's correct

Q. -- did you?
Was that a greater problem, a greater moral
problem than existed with Father Kos handling the penis of
these various boys?
A. It is a question of the end never justifies
the means.

Q. Your thought was the end -- it was such a
great moral issue, that forcing Father Kos to submit to a [7842]
penile plethysmograph, whatever it shows, will not justify
the means?

MR. MATHIS: Objection A, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Is that right, Father?
A. What was the question again?

Q. You said the means will not justify the end.
A. No, --

Q. The end being --
A. -- the ends does not justify the means.

Q. The end is not justified by the means.
A. That's correct.

Q. The end being to determine whether or not
you have a sick predator on your hands.
A. That's right. And you can't use any means
to achieve that.

Q. And your judgment was that it was immoral to
have Father Kos submit to that plethysmograph.
A. That's correct.

Q. Do you know how many children he -- how many
children's penises he handled from the time you made that
decision until he admitted he was a predator?
A. No, I do not know that.

Q. Do you know how many people he took their
feet masturbated with them after you made that decision -- [7843]
A. No, I do not know that.

Q. -- before he was sent away?
A. No, I do not know that.

Q. Do you know how many had rectal intercourse
with him --
A. No, I do not know that.

Q. -- after you made the decision that it was
immoral for you to ask him to go for this test?
A. No, I do not know that.

Q. Now, do I understand that Dr. Jaeckle was
asked this question, "Q. Did you find evidence of him
molesting children?" That's what you told us.
Dr. Jaeckle was asked, "Did you find
evidence of him molesting children?", correct? That's what
you told us.
A. I didn't ask him that.

Q. Well, Rehkemper asked.
A. The information came back, that's right.

Q. And he applied to you, "I have I've not
found that evidence that he is molesting children".
A. That's correct.

Q. In other words, the only thing he had to
work with was what Father Kos told him, and Father Kos had
not confessed to being a child abuser, to Dr. Jaeckle?
A. I don't know that. [7844]

Q. And then when you talked to Dr. Montana, you
told Mr. Mathis just a minute ago, I wrote this down as
carefully as I could, you asked Dr. Montana, "Is he a
pedophile"?
A. That's correct.

Q. And Dr. Montana reapplied, quote, "There is
no evidence of child abuse, based on the test"?
A. That's correct.

Q. In other words, Montana didn't tell you
there was any evidence of whether this man might be a
pedophile, did he?
A. There -- No, because there is no litmus test
to prove it.

MR. TURLEY: Objection, nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Bishop, Dr. Montana never
ever, ever told you, "This man is not a pedophile"?
A. No, he did not tell me. That he told me
what I just --

Q. What he told was --
MR. MATHIS: Let him finish.

MR. TURLEY: Nonresponsive.
MR. MATHIS: It is not nonresponsive. He didn't
finish.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. Do you need to [7845]
finish?
MR. TURLEY: What he was trying to say was
nonresponsive. I object to it.

THE COURT: Okay. I don't recall your question,
I'm sorry.
MR. TURLEY: My question was, if I could:

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) Dr. Montana never did tell
you that he was not a pedophile.
A. That's correct.
MR. TURLEY: And the Bishop answered and said,
"That is correct."
Thank you, sir.

Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) And the same is true with
Dr. Montana; unless Father Kos admitted to him, that he had
been sexually molesting and abusing a child, unless
Father Kos broke down and had a confession there in
Maryland, Dr. Montana is going to have to say to you, "We
didn't find any evidence that he is abusing children",
because that is the -- that is the correct answer, isn't
it, unless Father Kos had confessed during the
A. No --

Q. -- session?
A. No.

Q. But there is no question but that what
Dr. Montana told you on the phone is the same thing you [7846]
ultimately read in his report --
A. That's correct.

Q. -- and you told us this morning.
A. That's correct.

Q. So whatever is in his report, we don't have
to worry about what he told Monsignor Rehkemper or what
Monsignor Rehkemper told you or what he told you, we don't
have to worry about any of that hearsay, because we've got
it in writing, haven't we?
A. That's correct.

Q. And when you met with Father Kos, you know,
contrary to what you told us yesterday, Bishop, you still
never did really ask him the gut question.
A. Yes, I did, in my second interview.

Q. On your second interview, a moment ago, you
said to him, "Is something going on here"?
A. That's right. And I think that is in my
deposition.

Q. The gut question, Bishop, is, "Are you
sexually missing around are these little boys"?
A. That's right. And he responded "No".

Q. You you didn't ask him that. You said, "Is
there something going on"?
A. That's right. He new very well. He knew

Q. Well, maybe he knew, maybe he didn't.
7847
A. Oh, he knew. He knew very well.

Q. Bishop, pedophiles are sick. They're in
total denial.
You said, "Is there something going on
here?" He may have thought, "Are you stealing money? Are
you -- are you -- what are you doing?"
A. No.

Q. You don't know whether he knew or not. Why
didn't you just say the word, ask him the gut question,
"Are you sexually molesting these children, Father?"?
A. He knew that's what I meant.

Q. You never asked him that question, did you?
A. He knew that's what I meant.

Q. You never asked him that question, Bishop,
did you?
MR. MATHIS: Objection, asked and answered and
badgering the witness. He has answered.

MR. TURLEY: Nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Well, it is answered now, but it wasn't
before. So your objection is overruled.

MR. TURLEY: I didn't hear your answer, Bishop.
Q. (BY MR. TURLEY) You never asked him that
question, did you?
A. No.

Q. No one, in ten years at the Dallas Diocese, [7848]
ever asked Father Kos that question, did they?
A. I don't know.

Q. Thank you.
A. You're welcome. Thank you.

THE COURT: Ms. Sylvia?
MS. DEMAREST: Just a little bit.
MR. TURLEY: I have one other question, Bishop:

Q. Bishop?
A. Yes.

Q. Several times, yesterday and today, you said
you justified the action that you took with respect to
Father Kos, based on the evaluation that came back from
St. Luke's; is that right?
A. That's correct.

Q. You had justified your sending him back to
St. John's, based on that evaluation and the other
justifications you told us about.
A. And Dr. Jaeckle's also.

Q. And the material of the evaluation that came
back from St. Luke's, Bishop, you knew from --
Father Gutierrez told us -- Dr. Gutierrez told us this
yesterday, was that Father Kos may be a pedophile. That is
the bottom line, isn't it?
A. But it also -- he may not be.

Q. That is the bottom line, isn't it? [7849]
A. No.

Q. Thank you.