The central elements of a synodal church are often summed up as deep listening and working together.

Some of that will occur in synodal roundtable settings and their equivalents in diocesan and parish assemblies.

On other occasions it will be formalised in structures such as diocesan and parish pastoral councils.

Most of this synodality will occur face-to-face. Bishops, priests, religious, and lay people will sit together. But that is not always possible.

Synodality through correspondence

Synodality must also occur through correspondence. Some matters of substance are best expressed in written form.

Catholics must have the right and duty to correspond with church leaders, including bishops and priests, and to expect to receive a reply in due course.

Church leaders would do well to see themselves as having somewhat the same responsibilities to respond to church members as a member of parliament does to their constituents. In civic life that is taken seriously as a basic democratic right, and constituents are rightly disapproving when it does not occur.

But the hierarchical culture of the church does not encourage that sort of democratic interchange.

Mixed experiences

My own experience in the church reform movement is mixed in this regard.

On occasions I have welcomed quick responses from my diocesan bishop which have led to face-to-face meetings. I have also personally appreciated responses from some national episcopal leaders. But on other occasions that has not been the case.

Raising challenging issues

Church reformers often raise challenging issues in correspondence.

Examples in my own recent experience include correspondence to bishops over welcoming LGBTQIA+ Catholics within the church and urging bishops to take a stronger public stance on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Only a small minority of bishops have chosen to respond to, or even acknowledge, this correspondence.

Why leaders remain silent

The reasons for the evident lack of responsiveness are not always clear. Is it disrespect or lack of administrative capacity?

My experience may not be universal, though I know that other reformers have had similar experiences. It may be that church reformers are branded as lobbyists and pressure groups, categories that are dismissed as adversarial and operating outside church norms. Maybe our correspondence is seen as impertinent and not deserving of a response.

In smaller dioceses, lack of sufficient administrative capacity may be a reason. That is still disappointing. At times of diminishing revenue, correspondence, especially if it originates from outside the diocese, may not be given a high priority.

There is no excuse, however, for major archbishops not to have adequate capacity at their disposal.

A matter of respect

Much of the problem is that such correspondence is perceived by them to be outside the bishop’s job description. Yet such a lack of responsiveness is evidence of a deeper problem of disrespect.

Bishops keen to act synodally should take a leaf out of MPs’ books and borrow from the culture of healthy democracies. All Catholics deserve to be heard by their leaders.

Two-way correspondence is an important part of listening and responding.

• John Warhurst is Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University in Canberra. He was the founding chair of Concerned Catholics Canberra Goulburn and is now a director of the Australasian Catholic Coalition for Church Reform.