Well, I don’t really get this. He didn’t hear the confession of the molester, but of the victim. What is it they want to know,and why don’t they just ask the young lady? If she doesn’t wish to tell them, why would they think the priest will tell them?
Do they want him to confess to wrong-doing in telling her not to report it? Then what will they do, sue him for priestly mal-practice? And I don’t see why that info couldn’t be gotten from the penitent either.
She’s not dead or something, is she? It didn’t seem like that from the story, but maybe I missed something big because I’m missing the underlying issue.
The claim bears on whether or not a priest is a mandatory reporter. If he is, what passed between them is potentially material to his role as a mandatory reporter, and the church becomes liable.
She did testify in a deposition. Now the church wants to block her from testifying at trial. The Motion in Limine that kicked this off was NOT about the priest's testimony - it was about whether SHE could testify.
Bottom line - they want money, that is all that matters to them. We can only hear one side of the story and it is always possible there was some confusion on her part as to exactly what was said to her.