Kim, very sorry to hear that.

I was put in that position once, though I was fortunate enough to get an email well in advance with the request. I'm sure it was so difficult to make a decision with so little notice (especially since, in most cases, the one's making outlandish requests like this are often people with plenty of "sway" in the parish and you'd prefer to not make enemies with them).

Like Tim, I'd say send an apologetic but explanatory email to Father. Let him know you were put in a trcky spot, you regret that it happened, and that it won't happen again.

For the rest of you, it might be good to nip this thing in the bud. "Father, just in case I ever get a Happy Birthday request, can you tell me now to politely decline it with a "Father would NOT like that and he told me so, sorry." response?" :)

While the priest overreacted, it might be helpful to consider why exactly you gave in to the parishioners on this one.

They are going to try to make the music more casual, while the priest is trying to make it more formal. He is going to need to know you are backing up his agenda.

Just food for thought! Keep up the important work you are doing!

[Off at a tangent]
There is a Latin "many years" and priests use it.
One of our Archbishops managed to combine - his birthday, and the Cathedrals Patronal feast. Assembled Canons, and the choir, sang Ad multos annos that seemed to be acceptable. Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XqA0WbiSDI

They are going to try to make the music more casual, while the priest is trying to make it more formal. He is going to need to know you are backing up his agenda.

This was outside the Mass: they have every right for the music to be more informal then.

If Fr Whipper-Snapper didn't want a fuss, then he shouldn't have mentioned it. By mentioning it, he was pretty much guaranteeing that you would be put in the position you were.

And as stated, we're in the middle of a respiratory-disease pandemic. Cop on.

So the recessional hymn you mentioned was a cantor solo, or choir only?

Madorganist, it's just me by myself, singing and playing organ. Alleluia, Sing To Jesus, actually.

On a side note, there's a priest in a very prominent church who ends his homily every year on the Nativity of Our Lady by leading Happy Birthday to her.

This was outside the Mass: they have every right for the music to be more informal then.

The church is still a sacred space and thus profane music should not be performed or played. Furthermore, if one is playing a pipe organ, it was likely blessed and set aside for sacred use only. I know there’s an elaborate blessing of pipe organs in the Roman Ritual.

Was this is the choir loft? If so, I’d lock the choir loft doors.

Oh dear. That's very sad that it turned out this way. It sounds like you've been trying really hard to work closely with your pastor.
In the future, you could always say, "oh, sorry, no way could I play that. Maybe you can sing it in the parking lot."
The hard thing about being a Catholic musician, it seems to me, is that so often you are alone, with no frame of reference. I'm sure that in other parishes this would have been no big deal, if that's any consolation. It's not like you played something really awful just for your own amusement.
I think Kathy's food for thought is a good one. The parishioners might try to push back if the music is not going in a direction that they like.

Tell them you will write a fugue on the theme, and play it on a synthesizer in the church hall after Mass... they will be elated and you will be off the hook with God, pastor and hopefully the pips. Here is the score...

You've asked for advice, so here it is. There are better things to program for a priest's birthday than Happy Birthday, especially a traditionally-minded priest's birthday, but an anger issue probably won't go away.

It's possible that he is dealing with temporary, heady stuff that you can't know about, but it's also possible that he's just a young man, not very experienced in managing or even working with people, and has a case of fervent righteousness about liturgical things. In this I would recognize a younger me, minus the priesthood. Plus with the priesthood comes a permanent level of heady stuff that you can't know about, like for example my sins.

If you've gotten "angered" at once, you'll probably get angered at again. The priest needs help to work through his anger management issue, and as a subordinate it will be hard for you to be the one to help him. It's not like you can complain to the priest's boss without it ruining your relationship with the priest. (Frankly, it is hard enough for musicians to complain about their bosses here: too often it is too obvious who they are, and who they are speaking about.)

Additionally, your liturgical instincts were way off from his. This isn't something you can change overnight even if you wanted to. As much as you love what you are doing now, you are not motivated by the same things quite as he is. (For example, perhaps you are drawn to the beauty of the music, which he is promoting primarily for theological reasons.) I mention this because it will cause further conflicts in the future, if you are put in a position of making decisions without consulting him.

All of which is to say, you need to either run everything by the priest in advance, letting him be the music director and you the musician (which seems to be the setup anyway?), or accept the probability of his wrath when he disagrees with you again. Some people don't mind wrath as much as others, but your post indicates that you are in fact bothered by it and so you should try to avoid it in the future.

Quitting is another possibility, but if you get joy from the singing and playing, you should not let the priest ruin your fun. On the other hand, if you get more joy from setting the music, well, this doesn't sound like the job for you.

I'm pretty sure program isn't the right verb to describe what was spoken of in the original post.

Yes, but it is the right verb for the sentence.

I was just so mortified by his response, I'm having difficulty this morning even making it through my devotions.

In the American workforce, in 2020, this sort of thing is a big deal. If it repeats, it will become an even bigger deal.

I think it's rather peculiar that someone here referred to the priest as having an anger management issue because of one incident cited here on the forum. Unless one has inside information about said priest and recurring occasions of bursts of anger, it's grossly unfair to characterize him has having such a problem. The OP never mentioned any previous issues (indeed, she seemed to indicate that things were going well) with the priest (or that he has issues with others in general) so let's not send for the psychologists yet.

As an aside, there are many different interpretations to "very angrily told". What does it mean? Yelling and screaming? Slow, deep, threatening voice? Harsh tone, but spoken? Banging on the table? Calm, even tone, but angry look? I'm not asking the OP to actually describe it, but just pointing out that we have very, very, very little to go on to be making rash assumptions about the priest.

I was happy to let this thread die, but I'm not sure where anyone would think this was a 7-10 year working relationship with a young priest.

Priests read this page, and they need to know that outbursts of anger like the one mentioned are considered completely unacceptable by today's society. There is zero tolerance for them, and in the secular world, even a single allegation of an angry outburst can lead to disciplinary action. If the outburst occurred in public, or on camera, the individual's employment could very well be cancelled.

Yes, the Church is an ancient organization which operates by different laws, laws that might even be more fair in some respects, but we can all see where an attitude of impunity in the face of shifting societal norms has gotten us. Priests need to work on their soft skills just like everyone else in America. If priests don't take the initiative to self-learn, self-improve, solicit and listen to feedback to identify blind spots, etc., (yes, working with their spiritual directors too), then they are settling for mediocrity instead of what really and truly could have been a virtue. And the mediocre are not (as) capable of leading their flocks to virtue.

It takes 10-15 minutes for a perfect man to fashion a whip of cords. Which is plenty of time for an imperfect man to fetch a cup of coffee, put on a smile, and come up with the words "um, Kim, can we chat a bit about the Happy Birthday thing" before heading over to her office. Better result (she actually understands him), same zeal for the Lord's house, no posts on CMAA, no wounded employee.

Well, we don't know enough to judge that either in this particular instance. And this is just about this particular instance, which won't be helped by turning into grist for other purposes.

.

Even with aberrations and abuses as grievous as this, if no malice is in play (and it clearly was not here), a different approach is called for than what was displayed by this priest. Such a practice as this might be commonplace in less liturgically...knowledgeable parishes, and lashing out turns it into a personal judgement of taste rather than an affirmation and renewal of timeless liturgical practice and decorum.

Yes, it was wrong to play the song in church, and the priest was right to disapprove. Suggesting that the manner in which he handled the situation was wrong does not diminish that in any way. Furthermore, we should be very cautious about supporting flawed or fallacious individuals or concepts merely because they are on the "correct side" - it does us no good whatsoever.

I think expectations can matter. We had a priest for 38 years who was pleased when the congregation sang happy birthday to him during announcements. You know, announcements that duplicate what is in the bulletin and no one really listens to in the first place. It was my predecessor who did the song before my time in music there. The next pastor objected and believed the song was inappropriate for use in a sacred space. I think he was correct.