STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT EDURTH JUDICIAL-DISTRICT D.M. Plaintiff. vs. File No. FATHER ROBERT KAPOUN. CHURCH OF ST. RAPHAEL in Minnesota, and THE ARCHDOICESE OF ST. PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS. Defendants. Deposition of ARCHBISHOP JOHN R. ROACH. taken pursuant to Notice of Taking Deposition. and taken before Gary W. Hermes. a Notary Public in and for the County of Ramsey. State of Minnesota. on the 24th day of July. 1989. at First National Bank. St. Paul. Minnesota, commencing at approximately 9:20 o'clock a.m. AFFILIATED COURT REPORTERS 743 NORWES BANK MINNEAPOLIS, MN MIDLAND 333-4348 very well. r--And i do. I have. How have you come to know him? We were in the seminary together. he was about three years ahead of me in the seminary. I've known him over the years for 45 years in several of the capacities in which he's served in the Archdiocese and in which I've served. And I understand that he received his appointment as Monsignor many years ago. so you would not have been the one who made that appointment. were you? I was not, no. He has testified that in or about early September of 1973, he came to the Chancery on Summit to report some information directly to you than as personnel director. Do you recall him coming to you at the Chancery to report some information to you? I can recall a conversation with him. and this is in his review of the documentation. I do not recall seeing me with the memo, with the hand-written.memo which I have since seen. were you in September of 1973 or late August of 1973 then the personnel director? I was. And you were also Auxiliary Bishop? I was. You say you recall a conversation with Monsignor Srnec concerning some matter surrounding another priest at that time, is that correct? Father Kapoun. Why don't you tell me what you remember Monsignor Srneo telling you at that time. I was very concerned about Father Kapoun. Father Kapoun was stationed at St. Raphael's, which was the parish that Father Srnec served as pastor. Father Kapoun had seen me on at least one and probably two occasions and complained of serious physical I was I was unhappy with Father Kapoun, problems. frankly, I thought he was a fake, and he was at the same time that he was complaining of back problems and inability to work, he was also directing a band called the Polka Padres, and in my lack of or perhaps understanding of music, I suppose, physical defect, it was hard for me to understand how you couldn't work and how you could lead a hand. So I was pushing Kapoun very hard at the time and I became fairly convinced Kapoun had some problems, more than just physical problems. and that the problems had something to do-with his vocation. 0' 22 I really wasn't sure he wanted to be a priest and perhaps was looking for an easy way out of it. So I discussed that with Srnec. I remember talking to Srnec and Father Srnec, as I recall, confirmed that he fielt that there was something clearly wrong with him, and it was at that time, really, that we made the decision to remove him from St. Raphaelposition where he could get some evaluation, and we moved pie to Good Shepard at that time. And it was because we just we really were baffled by what appeared to be a kind of hypochondria, which I didn't understand at least. I think I have some better fix on it now, but I didn't then. Now, the records I've reviewed seem to indicate that is it Father Kapoun or Father Kapon? Kapoun I think. Father Kapoun was actually removed from St. Raphael's in September of 1974? That's right. Does that meet with your recollection? That's about correct. yeah. when before his actual removal did you first have discussion with Father or Monsignor Srnec concerning something we weren't able to get at as to the reason 24 for performer. Perform in the priesthood, in the parish? Perform in the priesthood. that's right. Monsignor Srnec was complaining about his lack of performance. I would talk to him and all I would get from Father Kapoun was a fairly mysterious list of physical complaints. And I would urge that there would be some kind of ohysical evaluation of that. And in the meantime, as I say. my being upset with him came from the fact that I would see billboards of the Polka Padre out with his accordion and here's a guy who wasn't performing. when you say not performin . specifically what are you referring to? what is it he wasn't doing that he was supposed to? well. he wasn't able physically to do, according to him. just to do the normal work o? a parish. And Father -- Monsignor Sruec was upset about that and that_was the_ultimate reason for the-transEer. what would have been the normal work of the parish that he wasn't able to do, at least as far as you knew? well. you know. I'm talking about a normal ten~hour 5; 25 1 day of all the things that would be involved in a 2 visitation ofmsick, 3 school. sick calls. counseling, that kind of thing. -4 Q. How did the difficulties with Father Kapoun come to 5 your attention? 6 A. well. my recollection is that Monsignor Srnec 7 indicated.either to me or to someone in the personnel 8 board that he was unhapp?uwith-Father Kapoun. Father 9 Kapoun also came in to see me. whether that was at 10 his request or mine. I really don't know, there's no 11 evidence in the files of that. and I talked to him 12 about his health at some length. 13 Q. Did your meeting with Father Kapoun predate his 14 assignment out of St. Raphael? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And can you give me an estimate. Archbishop. of how 17 long it did predate his actual assignment out of St. 18 Raphael? 19 A. well. I don't know that, but I would guess, once 20 again. that it probably would be a matter o?'a month 21 ,or two., 22 Q. And was that meeting at your request? 23 A. 1 don't know that. That's what I don't remember. 24 And the files don't indicate whether it was at his 25 request or my request. was there more than one meeting with him? It was at least one and possibly two, but I'm not sure of the second one. would that have been at the Chancery itself? It would have been at the Chancery. To your recollection, you never went to the St. Raphael parish to meet specifically with Father Kapoun at any time? No. I didn't. How many meetings in number were.there with Monsignor Srnec where the subject of Father Kapoun was discussed? My recollection is that there was only one meeting at my office. I'm sure you understand that he was relatively active in the Presbytery and so was I, so I might see him at other occasions and I would inquire, but I can only recall one meeting formally in which we discussed Father Kapoun. Do you recall who initiated that meeting with Monsignor Srnec? I do not, no. Now. you'd indicated that Father Kapoun was claiming that he was unable to perform some of these tasks required in the parish as a result of some injury that he had, is that correct? 0 26 witness to testi?y_as to matters through the years 1974,and through thefcalendgz yea; lalfilhecause there are allegations by the plaintiff that some of the contact did possibly take place as late as the winter of 1974. and giving him the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume that extended into 1975. so with that caution.in mind, I will allow Archbishop Roach to testify as to whether or not he received any complaints of sexual misconduct by Father Kapoun up through and including calender year 1975. But before he answers, I believe Mr. Brown has an objection as well. MR. BROWN: On behalf of Defendant Kapoun. I would join in the objection, however. I would object to any information after January 1. 1975. THE WITNESS: After January 1. 1975? MR. EISENZIMMER: However. Archbishop. you are allowed to testify and I'll instruct you to testify through the calender year 1975 as to whether you received any complaints regarding Father Kapoun. THE WITNESS: Is that the question? MR. slssuzxrme: That's the question. I have no information. received no information through 1975 on the part of Father Kapoun. (By Mr. Anderson) 30 I'll re--ask the question so it u' -Id"r Yes. When, Archbishop, is the first time you received any information from any source alleging sexual misconduct by Father Kapoun relating to I'm not sure. Within the past year. And from whom did you first receive any claim or information concerning a possible claim of sexual misconduct by Father Kapoun relating to Well, I'm not sure whether I heard this from Father O'Connell or from Bishop Carlson, I heard it from one or the other. Father O'Connell being the Vicar General and Bishop Carlson being -- Bishop Carlson the Vicar Bishop for the Minneapolis area. How did it come to you? In conversation. And what did either Father O'Connell or Bishop Carlson tell you? Merely that there had been this allegation. By whom? I believe that it_had come from our counsel. And what did either Vicar General O'Connell or Bishop Carlson tell you about from where they learned it? From Mr. Eisenzimmer. And what did either of these individuals tell you at that time? Nothing more than the fact that the allegation had been made. How, this lawsuit, if I'm not correct, was initiated around January of 1988? MR. BELLOWS: '89. (By Mr. Anderson) '89, excuse me, 1989. Did this information you received from either Bishop Carlson or Father O'Connell predate the initiation of this suit? DO. No. My recollection is it would not have, Okay. Now, have you reviewed any materials in anticipation or in preparation for the deposition today? I reviewed two documents. Do you recall what they were, Archbishop? Yeah, one was may I get them? If you recall I guess. MR. EISENZIMMER: Just tell him what you know. One was the memo which Monsignor Srnec presumably showed me, the other one was a memo from me reviewing a conyersation with Monday Srnec about Father Kapoun. and the third was a letter from Monsignor Srnec to Archbishopl-Byrne, in which he talked about Father Kapoun. I believe those are the three documents. (By Mr. Anderson) Have you reviewed any of Father Kapoun's responses to our interrogatories? I have not. Now, in his response to one of our interrogatories there is an individual with whom he has admitted touching the genital area of between 1967 and 1971, and in that answer he identifies the individual by initials, the initials heing D.J. Now, I don't know at the present time, the name or the identity of D.J. but will soon. In any case, do you know who D.J. is referring to? I do not. (Discussion out of the hearing of the court reporter.) MR. ANDERSON: [Can you give me that. I-ER . BROWN NO . (By Mr. Anderson) In this answer to interrogatory he identifies D.J. as being a person presently approximately 35 years old, which would, by my calculation, make this individual at the time of the touching of the genital area somewhere between well, somewhere between 13 and 17 years old, okay, in other words, a minor. Have you ever received any information from any source that Father Kapoun touched the genital area of D.J. while D.J. was under the age of 18? I did not. And before I brought this information to you today, had you heard that from any source? I did not, no. Now, other than Mr. Eisenzimmer, with whom have you discussed the subject matter of D.M.'s claim of sexual abuse by Father Kapoun? MR. EISENZIMMER: Excuse me, counsel, can we include Mr. Hoffman and hr. Haws in that? other than Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Haws and myself, as they're counsel to the Archdiocese as well. MR. ANDERSON: Sure, if they are counsel to the Archdiocese. MR. EISENZIMMER: In this matter they are. MR. HOFFMAN: You didn't know we were? (Discussion off the.record.). MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, you can include them. I'll rephrase the question. (By Mr. Anderson} other than with attorneys representing you or the Archdiocese, with whom have you discussed the Claim of sexual misconduct by Father Kapoun with 0 42 I discussed this briefly with both Bishop Carlson and Father O'Connell. When? Probably two to three -- well, once I think right after we were informed of the or notified of the suit. The second time probably two to three months ago. What was said the first time that you discussed it with -- was that with -- excuse me. What was said the first time you discussed it? I was merely notified that this suit was being brought. 'The second time was a more general ranging conversation about Father Kapoun. And where was that discussion? In my office. With whom? with Bishop Carlson and Father O'Connell. And nobody else present? No. were notes taken by you? NO. By Bishop Carlson or Father O'Connell. if you know? I doubt that notes were taken, but if notes were taken, they would have been by Father O'Connell, but I doubt that they were taken. And what was said at that time by Father O'Conne1l? Merely the fact that the suit was in process and he merely notified me of a conversation. as I recall, that he had had with Mr. Eisenzimmer, giving some time schedule as to how the suit was progressing. were there any questions asked by you?_ Well, at that time I was -- I wanted to know more about Father Kapoun, about how he was doing today and we pursued that at some length- I had a Confirmation in Heidelberg in Father Kapoun's parish shortly after that and I really wanted to know what I was going to find and whether it would be helpful for me to initiate any conversation with Father Kapoun about this subject. 1 wanted to know, really, what I could do to be some help to him. I got a very positive report from them about Father Kapoun at that time and that was the nature of the conversation. It was not about this suit particularly. was there any question by you about D.M. and how he was doing or anything of that kind? No, there was not. Have you discussed it with anybody else at any time? No. I do not recall that I have. Have you ever discussed the subject of D.M. and the claim of sexual abuse by Father Kapoun with Monsignor Srnec? I have not. no. Now, do you know a K.E. and I do not. Do you know K.M.. the name I do not. K.M. is now roughly 38 years old, but has claimed that when he was 17 years old Father Kapoun initiated sexual contact with him when he was at Father Kapoun's cabin in Cold Spring, or Father Kapoun's parents' cabin in Cold Spring. To your hnowledge. has anybody ever brought such a Claim to your attention? They have not. K.M. has reported that he has reported this misconduct to Father Kevin Mcnonough within the last year, specifically six months ago. Has this ever come to your attention? There was discussion with Father McDonough about Father Kapoun which may have incorporated this and I don't remember that. I would have seen this as a part of a much larger kind of question about Father Kapoun. three--page statement written in 48 I do not. It is signed by a T.M. Is it a fair statement or am I correct in stating that the writer of this document claims that Father Kapoun engaged T.M. in sexual misconduct sometime in the year 1973? According to this memo. that's correct. Now, Honday Srnec has testified that in 1973. specifically September, early September 1973. that he brought this very memo to you and presented it to you in the Chancery. Are you aware that he has testified to that? I am, I am. correct, yes, My question to you. Archbishop, is did Monsignor Srnec ever present this memo to you? Not to my knowledge, no. If this memo had been presented to you in September of 1973 or thereahouts, what would have been done with it? MR. EISENZIMMER: Object to the extent that the question calls for speculation on the part of the witness. but I'll allow him to answer it without waiving the objection. MR. ANDERSON: Sure. fi"D' I I 4h I would have treated this as a very serious issue. I certainly at that**~ time, would have tried to determine the correctness or the incorrectness of the charge. certainly would have inquired as to what we as an institution might do to be of assistance to T.M. Those things certainly I would have tried to do. (By Mr. Anderson) Now. earlier I had asked you soe questions about maintenance of priest files and you gave me some descriptions and maybe in some other cases as well the kind of materials that are maintained in the priest files. and you also I think this morning talked about a vault where certain sensitive type documents are maintained. can you tell me today, based on your knowledge of the maintaining of the priest file. the general file. and the maintaining of the personnel files and the maintaining of the files that are maintained in the if this particular document in somewhat secret vault. 1973 had been presented to you. where it would have been maintained. if it woule have been maintained?-- MR. EISENZIMMER: I'll object again on the basis that the question calls Eor speculation and instruct the witness not to answer. He doesn't have to engage in that kind of speculation. It's a little conversation with Monsignor Srnec. not Father Kapoun. Excuse me. I do not recall that. but the memo is certainly reflective of that. But you do recall having sat down with Father Srnec and discussed Father Kapoun. at least in 1974, is that correct? That's correct. Okay. The content ofi this memo. review. I must say is somewhat puzzling to me in view of the prior memo or the question of this person. That was a year prior to that and it would seem to me strange that Monsignor Srnec and would not have talked about that problem, had we talked about it before. There's nothing in here, nor is there anything in here. which would indicate that Monsignor Srnec was talking about a sexual problem in this memo {Indicating}. I find that puzzling. ,Is it your testimony then that if Monsignor Srnec had talked about a sexual problem regarding Father Kapoun -- It would have been in this memo. In July of '74 it would have been in the memo? which I had had a chance to" 10Correct. 67 And you wouldn't No. I would not have. no. we're going to skip 5 and show you what's been marked for identification as Exhibit 6. Can you tell me what this is? it is -- it is it's to I cannot tell you. Well. Archbishop Byrne, it's in response to a letter which apparently Archbishop Byrne had sent to me from Monsignor srnec. Now, is this a memo from you then? It's a memo from me. In your handwriting? In my handwriting. Maybe you can read it for me then. You can't read that? "Thank you for Monsignor S:nec's letter. He is probably right about Kapoun,' and I don't understand the file above. "we must check on him after a few months." Now, this memo doesn't have a date on it, does it? - BOB-S not .- Why don't you look at Exhibit 7. (Examining documents.) MR. EISENZIMMER: For purposes of clarification. it's my understanding that in the