Steps to Inclusion

I was recently at Mass in a beautifully renovated church when I noticed that a common barrier to participation had been built into the new design.

The renovations were well done and created a beautiful and liturgically functional internal space. The original internal layout was what can be seen in many churches, that is, a rectangular space with pews in rows facing a sanctuary on a raised platform. The renovated space retained some of the original design but reorientated many of the pews to face each other in two banks with the sanctuary space elongated between these pews. The new altar, ambo, presider’s chair and baptismal font occupied the new sanctuary space. The original raised sanctuary had been converted to a Blessed Sacrament chapel with the tabernacle at its focus. The new design successfully improved and encouraged the active participation of the faithful.

However, a common barrier to participation was retained not only in the Blessed Sacrament chapel but also in the new sanctuary. That common barrier is the STEP, a structure to get from one floor level to another. The new altar and ambo in the centre of the seating are located on a newly built platform.

The church reconstruction incorporated an external gathering space with ramps to eliminate any steps from the public footpath and on-site car parking through the main entrance to the floor level of the church. For some decades this has been a common renovation to churches. Step-free access into buildings has become a desired outcome of many renovation projects as worshippers grow less mobile and wheelchairs, walkers and other mobility aids become more common. However fewer renovations of the interior space of churches have resulted in step-free access within a church.

Step-free access is usually referred to as ‘access for people with a disability’. Words matter. It is worth noting that the Australian Standard that sets out the building requirements for access (AS1428.1 – 2009) simply names it ‘Design for Access and Mobility’. This is perhaps the starting point in the design process, rather than assuming step-free access is mainly for people with a disability. The image of a person in a wheelchair is often conjured-up when considering questions of access into a building. This may be because the signs we see on doors and carparks is that of a stylised person in a wheelchair.

However, this notion can be limiting. Step-free access is also desired by a person permanently or temporarily on crutches, a person wheeling a pram, a person who is less mobile because of weight or injury or impaired vision or deteriorating knees and hips. When we broaden our thinking to include all manner of mobility issues, step-free access is important to a greater percentage of the general population and of our church congregations.

The church I recently visited had a very good design solution integrated into the entrance that provided step-free access to the building. However once inside, access to the Blessed Sacrament chapel (the old sanctuary) was via steps. To proclaim the Scriptures at the ambo a reader had to negotiate two steps and, to preside at the altar, the priest had a one-step rise.

There are many practical reasons why steps are retained in renovated churches. Sometimes there are heritage or space requirements in an existing building. Sometimes steps are an integral part of its construction. Sometimes it simply comes down to cost. Others might argue that steps are required by the symbolic nature of sacred architecture and biblical references: that it is important to ‘go up’ to the altar. There are always the requirements for the people to see and hear at the liturgy and often, especially with church renovation, there is compromise.

Nevertheless, if we are to take seriously the call of the Second Vatican Council to promote the active participation of the faithful in the liturgy, surely this liturgical principle should extend to all the faithful and take account of the design of a liturgical space. Those with mobility issues and people with disabilities need to have the opportunity to participate in the various liturgical ministries and roles and this includes reading the scriptures and helping distribute Holy Communion. I have often seen a reader having difficulty in climbing the steps to a sanctuary or ambo or, what’s worse, negotiating those steps on the way down. Steps are also difficult structures for some clergy who may also have mobility difficulties due to age or a lack of flexibility.

Steps are barriers to participation in the liturgy.

In Australian society, dignified and equitable access for all people to and within buildings is a cultural feature enshrined in legislation. This cultural shift began in the 1970s and progressed to the 1992 Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act. Most people are aware of the presence of ramps into and within new buildings and toilet facilities for people with disability. New buildings are required to comply with legislative requirements for access. When carrying out renovations, existing buildings are also required to upgrade access in some circumstances. These requirements set the minimum standard. I would ask why our churches should not be held to a higher liturgical standard in order of promoting active participation by all in the liturgy through designing equitable, dignified and participatory access. This access is not through a side door, or by a special or separate entrance, or by way of a portable and temporary ramp.

Access must speak to the dignity of the person and the equality of all.

When a restoration or renovation budget is developed, there are a number of essential and desirable aspects to the project that usually are prioritised. I am arguing that establishing full access is one of the top priorities and should be placed in the ‘essential’ category. The access aspects of the project may be broken up into stages that then can attract funding as it becomes available. Sometimes heritage and access grants from government agencies will assist.

Creative design

There is a saying that ‘the building always wins’ when rearranging the internal space of an existing building. Unless the project includes the demolition and extension of the walls of the building, internal space is finite. The space needed to install a straight ramp can extend many metres but curved ramps or combinations of different types of ramps could also be incorporated into the design. Depending on the height of the step or steps to be replaced, a ramp may be required to achieve a grade of one in ten or one in fourteen. Handrails are not always required but usually are essential. Although the building may always win, improvement in equitable, dignified and participatory access is also possible.

Picasso once said that ‘everything you can imagine is real’. The imagination of creative people is a valuable resource. Creative design solutions to overcome access issues are sometimes seen as the domain of the project architect but perhaps there are others who can contribute to the design process – the builder, a person with a disability or a specialised access consultant. Often such a team, plus a liturgist who understands the Church’s worship and its theology, and a priest who understands the practicalities of celebrating the liturgy, together can create a design that offers a solution to the most intractable challenge. For example, a curved ramp might envelope the sanctuary or the sanctuary space might be re-oriented to allow for step-free access or the space for the assembly may be elevated to look into the sanctuary. Getting it out and into the built environment is sometimes the biggest hurdle.

The underlying issue in establishing this priority is the justice of recognising the innate dignity of the person in which the divine image is present. The compassionate embrace of God is all inclusive. The ways in which the faithful participate in the liturgy … mediates the presence of Christ in the world (Daniel McCathy, Word and Spirit, 2017). 

‍

This article was originally published in Liturgy News ​Vol 44(3) September 2014. Reprinted with permission.

‍