COMMON LIFE
In canon law, the term has a twofold meaning. It can refer to: 1) cohabitation under the same roof with mutual relations; 2) the special manner of observing religious poverty as now required by the Church.
### I. COMMON LIFE AND SECULAR CLERGY
In the first sense, common life exists in every institute or community; but canon law is concerned with it insofar as the Code of Canon Law (can. 134) strongly recommends it for the secular clergy. In the early centuries, the clergy (e.g., in Jerusalem: *Acts 2:44; 4:34*) lived with the bishop, supported by the offerings of the faithful, administered under the bishop’s authority (see CANONICI REGOLARI DI S. AGOSTINO). From the 5th century onward, the religious care of scattered populations, the invasions of the Germanic peoples, and the development of the *ius Ecclesiae propriae* led to the subdivision of goods among the lower clergy, a division that continued unchecked. This occasioned many evils (cf. the pseudo-Isidorian canons: 2, 9, C. XII, § 1, etc.), resulting in the cessation of common life among the clergy. A revival was attempted under Alexander II, who, inspired by St. Peter Damian (see), an apostle of renewed common life among the clergy—especially canons—sought to restore ancient discipline (c. 6, D. 32). Yet already Gregory VIII (1187) acknowledged the impossibility of a general restoration of common life and granted bishops only the faculty to introduce it where circumstances permitted (c. 9, X, III, 1). These efforts to renew common life among the clergy greatly fostered the growth of canons regular, so called in contrast to secular canons.
The most notable modern attempts to restore common life among the clergy include those of St. Philip Neri (see) with the Oratory (see), St. Charles Borromeo (see) with the Oblates (see), J.-J. Olier (see) with the Sulpicians (see), B. Holzhauser (see) with the Bartholomites (see), Francesco Pallo (see), and Pierre Lambert de la Motte (see) with the Seminary for Foreign Missions, among others. In the last century, serious difficulties—such as a shortage of clergy, the need to coordinate activities, reduced economic resources, the need to strengthen spiritual life, to set an example of selflessness, to safeguard the observance of chastity—gave rise to new institutions aimed at fostering common life, even in the mission field, such as the Missionaries of Africa (see). In Tonkin, missionaries also adopted common life, an example noted by the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith for Chinese vicars apostolic (*Collectanea*, vol. 2, Rome 1907, p. 181). Recently, common life among the clergy has been implemented in large cities among priests engaged in pastoral work. It has been recommended by the Code of Canon Law and strongly urged by Pius XII (*encyclical 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 suitable 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. COMMON LIFE IN RELIGIOUS LIFE
In religious orders, common life is a consequence of the vow of poverty (see), its application and safeguard, 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, 580, are to be contributed and administered in common; whatever each member receives becomes part of the common fund, and no individual—not even the superior—can claim any right to II. From the common fund, each receives the same food, clothing, and other necessities. Moreover, the religious must apply all their energies for the benefit of the institute in ways determined by the superior; whatever is produced through personal labor or received as a religious belongs by right to the community. Contrary to common life is true private property (*peculium*). The Church demands strict observance of common life, punishing violations with grave penalties (cann. 587 § 2, 2380). Common life in practice is relative to the poverty professed by each institute (can. 594) and does not admit contrary custom.