I say stick to your guns.

And why in the world would she want to be the cantor anyway, when her child is getting confirmed? Shouldn't she be with her family?

Point that out to her in a way that's not really asking those questions, but stating them. "No, I wouldn't make you do that, and I think you'd regret it. Be with your family."

You might add that this isn't about who gets "face time" up there anyway. What are we really here for?

You might add that this isn't about who gets "face time" up there anyway. What are we really here for?

Precisely. I would also surmise that this is not a person who usually complains about this sort of thing, such as on a normal Sunday. However, my suspicion is along the lines of what PGA said: she wants to do this because her family will be there and she wants to show off.

Interesting. I don't have an opinion, but I was thinking of requesting my choir to sing at my sons confirmation. I believe this would be the "best" music our church could offer, yet, I will be busy. Otherwise it will be just a cantor, no choir... I'll ask my pastor about it and try to refrain from having my feelings hurt. I understand her position though. I'd have been hurt too.

You should not have been put in this position. If you cave in, you will rue the day that you set a precedent for entitlement.
The conscientious rationale for the decision you have already made is most thoughtful and appropriate.

Thank you for sharing this.

I typically assume people here have the ounce of common sense to run their programs responsibly and amicably. I guess this is my root error. So I'll go point-by-point on some of these ridiculous objections:

- First off, I didn't realize DonR's confirmation was scheduled for a few hours after he posted. This is something that should have been dealt with MUCH sooner. He says the mother "HAS BEEN putting up a stink", meaning this is something he did know sooner than today. As I said above, if the objection was raised at a suitable time, it would have been best to acquiesce to it. If not, it's entirely fair to say "I am concerned about you having the time, with everything you must be doing, to prepare this on such short notice. Do you feel this is something you can tackle?" If you don't want to put the decision in their hands, simply say the first sentence only.

- As to the other cantor, this is something that should have been dealt with shortly after the schedule was announced. If he has learned all of his music and everything is set, then say "I'd love to have you, but so-and-so has already diligently prepared; as a fellow cantor I'm sure you know how much goes into preparing for your role. I wish you could have let me know about this sooner, so I could have scheduled you!" (Of course... maybe she did inform DonR with enough time - that's what's in contention here to me)

- As to the quality, I have to ask whether the cantor is chanting the verse in a Gregorian gradual? Or is he just leading a "singalong" of hymns while flapping his arms? I would be concerned to have my best cantor for the former, for the latter I'd just be embarrassed to let it happen no matter who's doing it. There's the psalm and alleluia verse - maybe 12 measures to learn? I tend to appoint my best for festal occasions, but the fact that this woman already cantors on Sunday tells me that she's presumably skilled enough to learn a psalm and verse. I don't invest as heavily in a psalm as I do in an anthem or voluntary.

A good objection to my proposed course of action was made by my esteemed colleagues Jackson and David, namely that this would represent a threat to authority. I guess I am duly reminded of the words of Our Lord, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them. But you are to make their displays of power seem libertarian compared to your ruthlessness." Or did He say that?

I do believe that a choirmaster must be a benevolent dictator. That's a delicate balance though, not just a strong arm all the time. I cave on some less-important things so that I can hold my line on others. And I always express my desire to be ABLE to do what someone else wants - especially when I think it's a bad idea. As I said above, the best thing for DonR to have said would have been "I wish you would have brought this to me sooner so I could have scheduled you!"

And yet Our Lord speaks so much of servant leadership. Are we right to clamor over power and exercise political intrigue and bullying to get it? I think that's a question for each of our own conscience, and one I ask myself frequently. Charity was mentioned - something we like to ignore here. Let's just keep ignoring it, what does charity have to do with The Church?

Why do I get so agitated about this? I had many mentors in my early days, old revered experienced church musicians who instilled in me the values I still work by. I remember well how one of them said to me often, "Talent and ability are worthless in this field. What will determine the success of your career is your people skills. You must be the best organist you can be, but if you go around being a jerk to everyone to get your way, you will have a short and disastrous career." So even while I have struggled to improve my skills in playing and conducting, I always try to improve my skills in dealing with the personalities I interact with every week. And it pays off.

I get agitated when I see an opportunity to do a decent thing for another human being reduced to how 12 measures is going to sound.

TL;DR: This is why I don't comment here as frequently anymore.

Sometimes, both the pastoral and musical concerns can be addressed in situations like this by compromising a bit.

If the music selection choices for the Confirmation included several pieces that involved a cantor (e.g., in addition to the Responsorial Psalm and Gospel Acclamation, during the anointing of the candidates, a communion song if Mass was celebrated) perhaps the mother-cantor could have been invited to just sing on one of the selections, leaving the remainder to the cantor that was originally scheduled.

Since we don't know all of the details in this situation, that may or may not have been feasible. And since the ceremony has already taken place, this is a moot point in this particular case. But it might be helpful in the future.

At my parish, we actively seek liturgical ministers for Confirmation who are related to the candidates. For example, if any of the candidates' family members are our parish lectors, altar servers, or Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, we ask them first. With cantors, we generally use several during the ceremony, since there are usually a number of pieces programmed for the ceremony that involve a cantor.

I emphasize, however, that we do this only for liturgical ministers who are members of our parish, and not relatives who may minister in other parishes.

Just some thoughts for what they're worth.

It is unfortunate to see such emotion and possibly anger expressed over what is essentially a scheduling issue. In my experience, the rotation of cantors is set far in advance of any liturgy. As a result, there is time to make adjustments, hopefully before the cantors have rehearsed. It isn't unkind or "ruthless" to refuse to alter a program at the last minute if all of the cantors were aware of the schedule ahead of time.

melo, this simply is not fluent... you should change your name to melocryptic.

IMOYMMVEOS

Tales from the MeloCryptic! I like it.
In my opinion, your mileage may vary, especially on Sundays.
And it kinda looks Greco-Roman to boot!

"I should have mentioned in my first post that we had rehearsed all the music and this person approached me Two days before the confirmation requesting she do it."

Sounds like you handled it right, in that case!!

I just want to make clear that, to my thinking, the problem is the timing of all this more than the issue of who's doing it.

That's one of the first things I say to choirs: "I plan all this WELL in advance, so if you have ANY requests whatsoever, the rehearsal before Sunday is NOT the time to ask me!"