Thanks to the Catholic Bishops of the United States’ Complementary Norms, January 1, 2024 — the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God — will not be a holyday of obligation. That’s because, under those Norms, certain holydays cease being holydays of obligation if they fall on Saturdays or Mondays. The illogic of this arrangement is especially apparent at Christmastide because two holydays — Christmas and Mary, Mother of God — fall a week apart. Because the latter is always the Octave Day of Christmas, it always falls on the same weekday as Christmas which, in 2023, is a Monday.

Because the Bishops dared not tamper with Christmas (and probably would have been whacked by Rome if they had attempted to try), we have the paradox we had in 2022, when both feasts last fell on a Saturday: one remained a holyday, one did not.

I have never had a clear explanation for the logic behind the Complementary Norms. It cannot be for liturgical reasons, e.g., “what do we do with Evening Prayer I of the Liturgy of the Hours?” because there is a clear table of liturgical precedence to resolve that. Besides, the “proper” Evening Prayer I for the Liturgy of the Hours is hardly the reason to upend the broader observance of these feasts. So, it’s likely the origin of this mishmash is at least cloaked in “pastoral” considerations, e.g., the fact that Catholics might have to participate in Mass two days in a row, which they (and apparently some bishops) deem burdensome.

I say “cloaked in ‘pastoral’ considerations” because appeal to the “pastoral” is a resort for all sorts of laziness or ill-thought-out projects (the latter especially in the current pontificate). I have vague memories of a debate among the bishops in the 1990s over whether to keep most holydays, with a split between those who wanted to cut to the absolute minimum (Christmas and a patronal feast) and others who argued the Church had already accommodated secularism too far. From what I remember, this situation is the cobbled together “compromise.” (Another example is whether the Solemnity of the Ascension is a Thursday or a Sunday, 40 or 43 days after the Resurrection.)

It is a horse designed by committee.

In many European countries, whether a day is a holyday of obligation depends on whether it is also a civil holiday. In many of those countries, the cultural gases of Catholicism (and the desire to get out of work) have left several of them on the calendar. But that was never a criterion in the United States (which adds to the accommodationists’ “burden” argument: you have to go to work and then church!). It also does not apply to January 1, which is a civil holiday on which almost no Americans report to work, except in essential services.

Given that January 1 is “a day off,” what logic is there to rescind the Mass obligation?

I’ve argued that this practice sets a terrible example, starting the civil new year with church as optional. Of course, the liturgists will immediately pounce, insisting that January 1 is not celebrated by the Church as New Year’s Day. Which leads to a second set of complaints: the mishmash of January 1.

What are we celebrating January 1? Have we ever been effective in catechizing that? The real feast is the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. That is the ancient feast of the Octave of Christmas day. Over time, it was replaced by the Circumcision of Jesus. In fact, that remains the Gospel of the Day. It was the 1969 Roman Calendar reform that recovered the Marian feast. That event, however, coincided with two contrary trends: (i) the post-Vatican II Marian amnesia, especially in liturgy, that was not practically resisted until the John Paul pontificate; and (ii) general American catechetical illiteracy, which began setting in during this period, resulting in people not knowing why we celebrate the day anyway. Then Pope St. Paul VI decided in the late 1960s to overlay January 1 with “World Day of Peace.” In the middle of all that the return of the civil new year to January 1 sometime around 250-300 years ago is ignored. After all, the Church does not just respond to the spur of the moment (unless it is something heterodox promoted in a national synod).

(Above I say “return” because the initial shift to January 1 occurred under Julius Caesar and, because celebrations of “Janus” were deemed frivolous, the Church in Rome seems first to have observed a few penitential days around the start of January. But the Eastern Church, riven by Christological controversies (that spilled over into Marian theology, i.e., Nestorianism) early on celebrated Marian feasts in January. When the Church eventually prevailed during Christendom, New Year’s Day in some countries was March 25, the Annunciation, the conception of Jesus. Some time in the Renaissance and beyond, we reverted to January 1.)

I have no illusions these contradictions and gaps about what is celebrated January 1 will be addressed. This pontificate is disinterested in matters liturgical, except if those matters might be seen as “traditional.” It is painful to say, but addressing confusion around whom or what we celebrate January 1 should probably be deferred until after the Francis papacy. That doesn’t mean the contradictions are any less problematic.

So, priests on the Third Sunday of Advent busily told parishioners that there were no “two-fers” and one should attend Mass on both the Fourth Sunday of Advent and Christmas. The next week, undoubtedly, they assured relieved parishioners there was no double-header: you “have to” go to Mass on Sunday, December 31, but Monday, January 1 is up to you.

Given the civil status of January 1, there is no reason for continuing the “Saturday-or-Monday-get-out-of-Mass-free” card of the “Complementary Norms,” and plenty of reasons to encourage Catholics to participate in Mass in honor of Our Lady and for world peace at the start of the civil new year. The Complementary Norms should be reconsidered, at the very least with regard to January 1. Is there any bishop ready to reopen that debate?