The question has been asked before, and now, it is being asked again.

This time, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference has stood by the church’s tradition of confession, and its anonymity, despite findings from the child abuse royal commission recommending otherwise.

The recommendation stated that clergymen should not be able to refuse information reported during confession, if it relates to child sex crimes.

Commission chief executive Philip Reid said: “The royal commission heard of cases in religious settings where perpetrators who made a religious confession to sexually abusing children went on to reoffend and seek forgiveness. The report recommends there be no exemption, excuse, protection or privilege from the offence granted to clergy for failing to report information disclosed in connection with a religious confession.”

In response, the bishops’ conference released a statement saying confession is a “spiritual encounter with God through the priest”, and maintained that the confessional seal is part of religious freedom. 

“Outside of this, all offences against children must be reported to the authorities, and we are absolutely committed to doing so,” the statement read.

The four walls of a confession box are excluded from mandatory reporting.

In Australia, there are legislative requirements around the mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect. 

By law, if a someone of a certain occupation suspects the aforementioned crimes, they are legally obligated to report it.

Those occupations are most commonly ones that interact with children, such as teachers, health professionals (including psychologists) and police.

Each state has its own tweaked legislation and laws, and Tasmania is considered to have one of the most extensive lists of occupations covered by mandatory reporting.

Given the horrendous crimes committed by members of the Catholic Church of Australia, revealed through the royal commission, Tasmania could justifiably say that it wants the confessional seal broken, and included in mandatory reporting.

Or the people of Tasmania could say, “have one more chance”, and allow the church’s religious freedom to continue.

But how many chances do we take when it comes to a child’s safety?