. 96Nfl'J?; n3<>or a promise, actually two promises. The first is a promise or a vow of celibate chastity and you all know what that is. The second is a vow or promise of obedience and it is obedience to his then archbishop and the archbishop's successors. That is all of the archbishops that follow after him while he remains a priest, and that vow of obedience means that he will obey what the archbishop tells him, where to go, where to be assigned, what tasks to do, and if the archbishop sends him to St. Patricks to serve, he goes. If the archbishop sends him to St. Raphael's, he goes and serves. That is what the vow of obedience says and means. The evidence will Show that Father Kapoun has enjoyed the reverence and the trust and the special station that priests occupy in the eyes of the community of faithful, and I mean Catholics particularly. It will show that he has been on many levels an effective priest in ministering and shepherding the flock over the years. It will show that he has served in six separate assignments since his ordination all assigned there by the archbishop and its successors. It will show that he has enjoyed the trust of his parishioners and the youth of the parishioners, and it will show that he has had and showed an interest in youth. Male youth. Father Kapoun will take the witness stand and I am going to call him to the witness stand, and I am going to ask him did you sexually molest Dale Scheffler and he is going to deny it. He is going to deny it. The evidence will show that his denial is se1f--serving, selective and hollow. And we will show you that Dale Scheffler was abused and his trust betrayed by Father Kapoun, and we will show you that by the testimony of Dale Scheffler as to what happened. We will show you that in part by the testimony of Father Kapoun who will admit that he took Dale Scheffler to the cabin, had him sleep there with him on the floor. He will admit that he was his priest, that he was the priest of his family, that he witnessed his confirmation, and that he had been at that time the pastor of the church. Father Kapoun will admit some abuse of another boy, and you will hear testimony about that because I am going to call that boy. He is now a man just like Dale Scheffler but the testimony will show that that other boy, Michael bearing, suffered abuse very similar to that Dale Scheffler suffered. And we will call to the witness stand other boys. Father Kapoun ordination in 1964. First assignment assigned by the Archdiocese and archbishop at the Holy Redeemer church in 1964. He served there for three years as assistant or associate pastor. He was then transferred by the presiding archbishop to St. Kevin's church. You have heard something about that, and the evidence will show he served there for four years, 1967 can you all see this? Can you see it? Okay from 1967 to '71, four years. We will call to the witness stand Curt Raymond to testify about how he came to know and trust Father Kapoun, and you will hear Curt Raymond who is now a man tell you how he was abused by Father Kapoun in similar fashion Father Kapoun abused Dale Scheffler in 1969. The evidence will show that after having served at St. Kevin's, Father Kapoun was transferred to St. Raphael's church in in 1971 and he served there for three years. And you will hear the testimony of Mark Tuma who we will call as a witness to tell you what Father Kapoun did to him, and he will tell you and what Father Kapoun did to him is not unlike what he did to Dale Scheffler. And we will call Michael Dearing to the witness stand to tell you what Father Kapoun did to him and what he did to Michael Dearing is very similar to what he did to Dale Scheffler. While at St. Raphael's church and serving as assistant pastor Father Kapoun, the pastor was Monsignor Stanley Srnec. Mark Tuma in 1973 father his father had died. His father was a devout Catholic. His mother wasn't a Catholic. But after the father died, Father Kapoun I assume will testify he presided the ceremony of the funeral and kind of jumped into the father's shoes and started to take Mark Tuma who was now about 15 years old on recreational outings, swimming and things like that, and it was in that context Father Kapoun began doing the inappropriate things with this boy. This boy was able to and did mention something to his mother. His mother didn't know what to do and she sought the counsel of her friend Mrs. Lesko. Mrs. Lesko said tell Monsignor Srnec and Mrs. Tuma called Monsignor Srnec and said I need to talk to you and she did, she told Monsignor Srnec what her son had told her about Father Kapoun. Monsignor Srnec came to the Tuma home and he talked to Mrs. Tuma and then he sat down with Mark Tuma. Pastor and Monsignor Srnec sat down and asked Mark what had happened, and Mark told him. Monsignor Srnec sat down after hearing this and said we have to take a statement, and he sat down with the boy and Monsignor Srnec wrote down the words that the boy gave him and what he told him and he had him attest at the end of the statement that this is true and correct and Monsignor Srnec had no reason to believe that the boy wasn't telling him the truth because he was. Monsignor Srnec took that threempage handwritten statement and he went to where he should have with it. He went to the Archdiocese. And the evidence will show that he met with a then auxiliary bishop with this statement in hand. That auxiliary bishop was also the head of the Priest Personnel Board and he was a proper person to bring this to. The evidence will show that the auxiliary bishop that he met with then in 1973 is John Roach. You know him or at least have heard him referred to as Archbishop John Roach because he later became a year or so after this the archbishop of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. 1 The evidence will show Archbishop or then Bishop Roach read the statement in Monsignor Srnec's presence and said, "Maybe it's true, maybe it's not." Monsignor Srnec left Archbishop Roach's office that day trusting and expecting that it would be dealt with where it should be dealt with at the Archdiocese. The evidence will show that it wasn't dealt with, and Father Robert Kapoun went on to continue to abuse Michael Dearing and he remained at St. Raphael's for a year and nothing was done. year later Father Kapoun requested a transfer out of St. Raphael's. He was having physical problems involving an automobile accident and he wanted a lighter assignment and the archbishop then presiding acceded to his request and moved him from St.Raphael's to Home of Good Shepherd, which was the lighter assignment, and he served at the Home of Good Shepherd there for a period of time. The evidence will show he served there 1974 to 1976 and it will show that he accessed another youth in same and similar fashion that he had accessed those youth before and that's Mark Schutz, and he is another witness we are going to call and testify, and it will show that he abused him in same and similar fashion. It will show that the same bishop that had had a hand in the assignment of Father Kapoun from St. Raphael's to the Home of Good Shepherd is the_same auxiliary bishop that took the report from Monsignor Srnec in 1973, Archbishop John Roach. The evidence will show that he served at the Home of Good Shepherd for two years and then was assigned by then Archbishop John Roach to another parish and that's St. Patricks parish, and he was assigned there in 1977, assigned there by the same bishop, Archbishop John Roach. He took the report in 1973 and did nothing. The evidence will show the Archdiocese was negligent in the retention and supervision of this priest. It will show that the priest used in all of these instances his collar and his position of special trust and reverence to access these kids, and that if he had not been retained by them, he never could have or would have. It will further show that after they received this report in 1973 that they could have and should have done a number of things. They could have and would have prevented this from happening and they did none of those things because they did nothing. The evidence will show that what they did do was to turn -their back and sweep it under the rug because that's the way they were doing business. Negligence is, and His Honor will instruct you, is very simply the failure to exercise reasonable care. It can be either a mistake of commission or a mistake of omission. In this case their negligence is both commission and omission. At the close of all of the testimony and all the evidence I will stand before you again. Hopefully it will be in three days or four, and I will do everything in my power and we will all do everything in our power to keep it as short as is possible. This is a very important and grave matter. And at that time, the next time I stand before you at this podium will be in summation, and at that time I will be asking you to return a verdict in open court based on the evidence and the law and asking you to find first that Father Kapoun did sexually abuse Dale Scheffler; second, that he caused profound and permanent injury by reason of that; third, that the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis were negligent in their employment retention and supervision of this priest who was unfit; and fourth, that the damage and injuries caused by reason of that violation are profound and indelible, and I will be asking you at that time to return a verdict that compensates Dale Scheffler fully and fairly for the indelible harm that has been done and to return a verdict that reflects the magnitude of the wrong that has been done and holds the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis accountable for it under the law. Thank you. THE COURT: Counsel. (Discussion at the bench out the hearing of the jury.) THE COURT: We are going to recess at this time until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. If you would all report outside here again. I have matters that I am handling before. We will get started as close to 9 o'clock as we can. Do any of you have any questions? Okay. See you tomorrow at 9 o'clock. (Recess.)