You’ve heard this phrase before, I’m sure. For many, it expresses the very strong link people make between the way someone looks and their worth in society. Well-dressed people are important and poorly dressed people are not. For the most part, it is a fairly superficial statement.

But what if the clothes actually did make a person who they were? In discussing the symbolic importance of clothing in my Pentateuch class this week, our professor shared a rather fascinating study published in 2012 called “Enclothed Cognition” (the study itself is not accessible for free, but you can read about it in a New York Times article here.) Basically, researches gave two groups of graduate students the exact same white coats to wear and asked them to complete a series of cognitive tasks. One group was told that the white coat was a doctor’s lab coat, the other was told that it was a painter’s coat. The results? Those who believed they were wearing a lab coat made half as many mistakes as those who believed they were wearing a painter’s coat!

As the article says, researchers have known for years that the way one looks can affect the way people are perceived and treated. What this study indicates, though, is that the clothing one wears can actually affect one’s image of self, and thus, have an effect on one’s psychological processes and productivity.

I have been a long believer of this, even before knowing the science behind it. In high school, our baseball coach allowed us to wear anything we wanted to practice as long as we had long pants and our shirts represented the school. Almost every player chose to wear sweatpants and an untucked t-shirt. I just couldn’t. I wore baseball pants, high socks, belt, and tucked in baseball shirt, the same things I wore for actual games. To most of them, it didn’t matter what one wore, it was how one played that mattered. Which is true. But at least for me, I knew that how I dressed affected how I played. Besides the obvious practical concerns (sweatpants are more cumbersome than baseball pants) there was a psychological disposition that clothing had on me: in my mind, wearing sweatpants was associated with lounging around and being lazy whereas wearing baseball pants was associated with playing baseball, something that was always done as hard as I could, and helped me focus. Clothing was not an inconsequential external, it was a conscious decision that changed the way I thought about myself and likely affected my psychological disposition.

As someone in religious life, this sort of insight is very interesting to me. While I get the feeling that the issue of wearing a religious habit is completely irrelevant to most people, it is a question that has been hotly contested by priests and religious since the Second Vatican council. Should we wear distinct religious garb? Because there are such strong opinions on either side (about which I have written before), the general conclusion for many is simply to say, “It doesn’t matter what you wear anyway, so wear whatever you want.”

I disagreed with this notion when I played baseball, and now, having learned that there is actual research in this area, have to disagree again. What one wears is not some inconsequential external with no meaning. It is an expression of oneself with significant import. What one wears not only affects how one is treated, it affects the way that we understand ourselves and act in the world. As public figures concerned with the spiritual and physical well-being of all people, called to evangelize and shepherd God’s people, how could this not matter?

But that doesn’t mean I’m calling for everyone to wear their habits and collars. Actually, in what might be the biggest surprise for some people, it’s quite the opposite: I think some people should wear their habits much less. Yeah. Didn’t see that coming, did you? Here’s what I mean. For me, the habit is a positive sign. It symbolizes humility, connects me to the larger tradition and church, allows me to connect with the people of God, and overall, makes me feel good as a pastoral minister. I embody what my clothes mean to me. But what about those friars for which the habit represents something negative, a sign of privilege or a way to separate the laity from ministers? For them, wearing the habit and embodying what it means to them is not going to allow them to be the best ministers they can be. Or, worse yet, what about those people for whom the habit is a sign of privilege and a way to separate the laity from ministers, and they like that about it? What it causes them to embody is extremely detrimental to the faith.

So, I guess the question I have comes down to this: if clothes can actually “make the man,” what sort of man is his religious garb making him into? If what someone wears makes him/her a less effective minister or moves them further from God, it might be time for a wardrobe change.

The cover photo is by German artist Herlinde Koelbl in a project titled Kleider Machen Leute (‘Clothes Make The Man’). The subject is Cardinal Müller, the prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

This weekend, we celebrate the lives of all the saints in the history of the Church. In my humble opinion, the communion of saints is one of the greatest gems our Church has to offer. We are not individuals finding our way on a journey for the first time; we walk in the footsteps of those great men and women who have gone before us. The saints offer us an example of how they lived in the past as well as providing intercession for us now in the present.

Recently, I was asked who my favorite saint was… besides Francis. With two thousand years of incredible men and women to choose from, how could I choose just one? So I didn’t. In this week’s Ask Br. Casey video, I decided to pick my top three inspiring saints (apart from St. Francis). It was still a difficult decision to make. Anthony of Padua, Thérèse of Lisieux, Patrick, Augustine, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Great, Blessed Mother Theresa, and Pope John XXIII have all inspired me in one way or another to become a better Christian. But none of them made the cut.

I hope the three saints I picked give you as much inspiration to live the Gospel as they have given me. Who would you pick in your top three? Let me know in the comments, and be sure to ask your own question! Thanks to Marc for this one! (Watch the video here.)

A few years ago, I read an article in a Catholic magazine written about a former CEO’s take on the issues facing the Church, particularly declining attendance and public perception. As someone from the business world, his solution, naturally, was to become more business-savvy: If my business were losing as many ‘customers’ as the Church is, I would want to know why: let’s do exit interviews so that we can evaluate the product and fix the problem (my paraphrase)In essence, treat the Church more like a business selling a struggling product.

Naturally, there is an immediate repulsion to this idea among many Catholics. The Church is not just some corporation out for money, willing to change who it is to make a buck. The Church is a divine institution guided by unchanging principles, concerned with building God’s kingdom and saving souls, not monetary gain.

This is true. But as I’ve thought about it over the past four years, I find myself wondering way too often, “Would this fly in the real world? Why do we let it happen in the Church then?” While some churches do some things very well, every church could learn a few things from the business world.

Recruitment, training and evaluation of personnel

A good business doesn’t just come together all-of-the-sudden with the best employees and maintain success over many years by accident. The best businesses are always looking to the future and recruiting new talent. They scout, seek out, and attract new employees every year, going to great lengths to find the right person for the job and convince them to work there. How well do we do this as Church, the business-savvy person asks. Do we nurture talent from our parishes, encourage the right people to get involved, and draw the best outsiders for the job with enticing offers, by which I mean competitive compensation? Are we seeking out the people for the job or are we okay with whoever shows up?

Once a business has found the right person, they need train them to do the job effectively. Even a Harvard grad with a 4.0 GPA will need on-the-job training. Businesses don’t just throw someone out there and expect them to do an incredible job; they make sure the new hire is ready. Why? Because they could lose them a lot of money if they don’t know what they’re doing! The Church may not be as concerned with losing money, but it most certainly can lose parishioners and turn people completely away from the Church with poor liturgical or pastoral skills. That should be reason enough to make sure everyone acting on behalf of the Church is properly trained to do so. Priests attend five or six years of school to be prepared (whether or not they are is another point), but how much training do the music ministers get? The lectors, acolytes, or eucharistic ministers? Are religious educators knowledgable and pedagogically sound about the subject they’re teaching? It’s great to be well-intentioned and want to help the Church, but I don’t think it is outlandish to expect that all ministers be adequately trained in the ideal purpose of their duty and the overall mission of the Church.

Finally, no institution in the “real world” survives without constant evaluation and expectation of improvement. Are you meeting your numbers, getting along with your coworkers, and continuing the mission of the business? If so, great. If not, corrections need to be made by setting goals and obtaining more training. In the business world, if one does more to harm the company than help it, they are let go and replaced. It may sound harsh, but money is at stake here. Do we as Church act with that sort of urgency? Maybe our tolerance and mercy is greater given our work, and it should be, but it just seems odd to me that most priests are not evaluated on their pastoral care or preaching ability, and that there exist so many insufferable or intolerable preachers, lectors, cantors, and musicians with no normative way to address it. If we care about what we’re in the business to do, “save souls,” why wouldn’t we make sure that the best and brightest are out there doing the job well?

This brings up a difficult point for the Church: what do we do with volunteers and employees that are simply inadequate, say, the little old lady that has been playing the piano for thirty years but isn’t very good anymore and kills the life of the mass? In the business world where there is little loyalty, she would be replaced with a younger, more productive piano player. I am not suggesting that we necessarily do the same, but I am suggesting that we balance loyalty and inclusivity with talent and performance, and find ways for people’s talents to best give glory to God. Not everyone has the talent they think they have!

Satisfaction with “business as usual”

In the business world, a company that doesn’t grow dies. It’s just the way business works. There are too many other things that a person could be doing with their money. To be successful, a company can never become satisfied with their current market share, product line, or marketing strategy, to the point of complacency.

As the Church, particularly the Catholic Church, we run a little monopoly, and so this situation doesn’t entirely apply to us, at least not as severely. Because we offer the sacraments, we know that there will always be a core group of followers that will never leave no matter what. And we can play to that least common denominator, approaching our work with either arrogance, “Where else are you going to go?” or apathy, “What we do is good enough.” But is that what we want? Neither of these would fly in the business world… so why do they fly in our churches?

Because of this, our churches can lack professionalism, have little-to-no desire to innovate, and rarely take risks to step outside of the norm. What do I mean by this? Take a look at the average parish website. Some websites are excellent; most are terrible. It may have the mass times and the pastor’s name, but it’s clunky, uninviting, and looks like a 5th grade computer class project with clip art and poorly chosen fonts. In this media age, businesses have incredible websites that make people want to come back and social media campaigns that actively attract new customers. So many churches fail to engage people online, either through a lackluster website or a non-existent social media presence, choosing to remain with the usual, or non-existent, methods of reaching out.

And this sort of attitude can permeate every aspect of parish life. Look at the bulletin on a given Sunday. Are the events creative and engaging or are they boring and routine? One does not need to reinvent the wheel, change Church teaching or the liturgy, or be a multi-million dollar organization to engage people in a new way. I look to things like the Mass Mobs in Buffalo, where a group picks a parish and gets as many people to flood to that church to all worship together, rotating around the city. It makes the “same old thing” exciting and worth joining. I think of one of our parishes that started a program called “St. Anthony University”: students and professionals at the parish offered weekly courses, e.g. Wisdom literature, Church Teaching, Spirituality, etc., and if parishioners fulfilled enough credits in a semester, they earned a “degree” and were treated with a free weekend trip away. I think of the Capuchin Cafe that students at CUA started: powerful prayer, inspiring worship music, and great preaching in the church, followed by food, drinks, and live music in the parish hall (this attracts more than 100 students on a Saturday night!)

And these ideas aren’t even that creative! Think if we sat down and planned things like they do at Apple and Google, pushing the envelope far beyond “business as usual” so that the Church was not only grounded and wise, but also imaginative and relevant?

Pray and evangelize as if our lives depended on it

We as Church have an incredible product. We have 2000 years of faithfulness, a rich tradition of liturgy and prayer, oh, and Jesus. The problem for me is not what we’ve got. The problem, in some cases, is that we don’t take what we got seriously enough. If we approached a business endeavor with as little passion or urgency as so many parishes do in our Church, we would be out of business in a month.

It’s not about whether we should a) hold on to our traditions or b) ditch them to become “cool”; it’s about identifying what it is that we can offer the world, guidance and fellowship on our journey to salvation, and creatively and effectively managing our resources in such a way that more people actually accept it. Good businesses don’t make the customer conform to the product; they get to know their customers so that they can highlight just how their product will satisfy the customer. For us as Church, this doesn’t mean gimmicky tactics or whitewashing our tradition. It means knowing how to effectively and efficiently evangelize the great gift that we have to offer. Imagine what our Church and world would be like if we showed the same passion and sense of urgency as the people who make our computers and cell phones do, if we worked as hard and thought as creatively to make the Church as effective as it could be “selling” our product.

When it comes right down to it, imagine if we put the same amount of resources into making the Church better as we do buying those computers and cell phones. I refuse to accept that money is the problem here, that if we really wanted great musicians, educators, web designers, and pastoral associates, and we really wanted them to be trained as well as they could be, that we couldn’t make that happen somehow. What we lack sometimes in the Church is not money, it’s vision.

I fully acknowledge the fact that this post has been longer and more Jerry-Maguire-manifesto than my other posts, but it’s a message I really stand by and will devote my entire life to carrying out. Truly, I am just warming up. What I hope for in sharing this with you, if you’ve made it this far, is to touch on any dissatisfaction or longing you may have with your church experience that you might be compelled to do something about it. We need more people with passion, drive, creativity and courage, qualities that make someone successful in the business world, to step up and take on leadership in the life of the Church. There is no reason that these qualities shouldn’t be “business as usual” in every one of our churches.

I’m not sure what the weather is like where you live, but in Washington, D.C., the past couple days have been cold. It’s been in the low 40s each morning, and yesterday it got below 32°F. As someone who lived in the Carolinas for many years, this is not ideal. Give me 95°F over 35°F any day!

Besides my obvious preference for heat, there is another reason why the coming of the cold weather would bother me, particularly as a friar: sandals. A slab of rubber and a few straps. That’s not exactly ideal for the freezing weather on its way, or for the rain that we could get at anytime of year for that matter. So what does a friar do? Are friars allowed to wear something with their habit other than sandals?

For many, it might sound like a silly question, but it was a highly controversial one at the start of the order (and actually one that surfaced many times in our history), and is a question that I get asked very frequently. I met a friend for lunch one day and he asked, “So… is there are point in your formation when you are allowed to wear closed-toe shoes, like when you’re ordained?” For him, and the many people that see me walking around in sandals when the temperature is in the 30s and 40s, sandals are a penitential act. While this may have been a part of charism at one point in our history, that is not why we wear them today. At least not the primary reason.

Friars are allowed to wear whatever they want with their habit, although, I have to say, not everything should be allowed (I’m looking at you friars that wear white sneakers, and don’t get me started about the socks and sandals guys!) Sandals are an iconic part of the habit, something that people identify with us, and so many people do wear them, but there is nothing intrinsically linked between the sandals and our vocation. For the most part, the decision is based on comfort (especially for older friars and ones with medical issues) and style.

But style doesn’t explain why I continue to wear them even into freezing weather. Sure, I like the aesthetic and think the image is pretty iconic, but there’s more to it than that. For me, there is symbolic value to the sandals that bring me closer to God and the poor.

I hope you enjoy the video! (Click here for email subscribers.) I’m working on a regular blog post now, but just a heads up for the faithful: it’s midterm time at Catholic University, so two major projects and a midterm might keep me detained for a while! Keep me in your prayers!

You’ve seen Leno. You’ve seen Fallon. The “man on the street” sketch is always a hit. Take a camera, put people on the spot with a question, and see what you get. (For instance, have Mets pitcher Matt Harvey go as a normal newscaster asking New Yorkers what they think of pitcher Matt Harvey.)

This past weekend, I decided to try it for myself in what is the first ever “friar on the street.” There was one difference, though (besides the habit and drastically lower budget!): instead of me asking strangers questions, I asked parishioners of St. Francis of Assisi parish to approach me with their questions. Anything that wanted to know about me or the friars. What could go wrong?!

I hope you have as much fun watching this segment of “Ask Br. Casey” ON LOCATION as we did filming it. Be sure to ask your own questions in the comments for the regular segment returning next week!