COMMON LIFE. — In canonical language, this has a twofold meaning. It may indicate: 1) living under the same roof with mutual relations; 2) the special manner of observing religious poverty, as it is presently required by the Church.
I. V. C. AND THE SECULAR CLERGY. — In the first sense, common life is found in every institute or community; but it is of interest to canon law insofar as the CIC (can. 134) earnestly recommends it to the secular clergy. In the early centuries, the clergy (e.g., in Jerusalem: Act. 2:44; 4:32) lived with the bishop, supported by the offerings of the faithful, administered under the bishop’s authority (v. CANONICI REGOLARI DI SANT'AGOSTINO. AGOSTINO). From the fifth century onward, religious assistance to scattered populations, the invasions of the Germanic peoples, and the creation of the ins Ecclesiae propriae decentralized the lower clergy, with a consequent division of property that was never reversed. This occasioned many evils (cf. the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals: 2, 9, C. XII, § 1, etc.), leading to the cessation of common life among the clergy. An attempt at renewal was made under Alessandro II, who, inspired by s. Pier Damiani (v.), the apostle of renewed common life among the clergy, especially the canons, sought to restore the ancient discipline (c. 6, D. 32). But Gregory VIII (1187) already recognized the impossibility of a general restoration of common life and granted bishops only the faculty to introduce it wherever circumstances permitted (c. 9, X, III, 1). These attempts to renew common life among the clergy gave considerable impetus to the regular canons, so called in opposition to the secular canons. The best-known modern attempts to restore common life among the clergy are those of s. Filippo Neri (v.) with the Institute of the Oratory (v.), of s. Carlo Borromeo (v.) with the Oblates (v.), of J.-J. Olier (v.) Sulpicians (v.), of B. HOLZHAUSER, BARTHOLOMÄUS (v.) with the Bartolomites (v.), PALLIO (v.) Lambert de la Motte (v.) with the Seminary for Foreign Missions, etc. In the last century, serious difficulties (a shortage of clergy, the need to coordinate activities, reduced financial resources, the need to strengthen the spiritual life, to provide an example of disinterestedness, and to safeguard observance of chastity) led to the emergence of new institutions intended to promote common life, including in the mission field, Africa (v.). In Tonkin too, the missionaries adopted common life, and the example was brought to the attention of the Chinese apostolic vicars by the S. Congr. of Prop. Fide (Collectanea, t. II,
Rome 1907, p. 181). More recently, common life among the clergy has been implemented in the major cities among priests engaged in pastoral ministry. It was recommended by the CIC and urged particularly strongly by Pius XII (encycl. Menti nostrae, 23 Sept. 1950: AAS, 42 [1950], pp. 692 ff.). The implementation of common life among the clergy entails cohabitation, a common table, and appropriate external discipline; it does not necessarily include poverty and obedience as vows. This is the type of common life still observed in Societies of common life without vows.
II. V. LIFE. — In religious institutes, common life is a poverty (v.), its application and defense, and a sure means of preserving and restoring discipline. By virtue of incorporation into the institute through vows, all goods, with the safeguards established by cann. 569 and 580, must be contributed and administered in common; whatever each person receives enters the common fund, without the individual, even if a superior, being able to claim any right; from the common fund each person receives the same food, clothing, and other necessities. Moreover, the religious must apply all his energies for the benefit of the institute in the ways determined by the superior; whatever he produces through his own activity (his industry) and receives as a religious belongs by right to the community. peculium (v.) is contrary to common life. The Church requires full observance of common life, imposing severe penalties for its violation (cann. 587 § 2, 2389). In practice, common life is relative to the poverty professed by each Institute (can. 594), nor does it admit any contrary custom.