“From the start, providing hospitality and healing the sick became key responsibilities of European
monasteries, ….Many were rural peasants, legally free, possibly even owners of small plots who had
suffered hard times. As early as mid-5th to mid-8th century, local bishops had been charged with
assigning one-quarter of their revenues for the needs of the poor, whose names were kept on special
lists, a third in rural parishes.
Many were fed, clothed and sheltered in the poorhouse or mansion pauperum adjoining the church.
Another frequent recipient of Christian charity was the stranger, a rather broad category that included
jobless wanderers or drifters as well as errant knights, devout pilgrims, traveling scholars, and
merchants. . . .” (94)
“Most initial Christian charitable institutions in the West were local foundations established by ruling
bishops or private individuals in response to particular needs in their respective dioceses. To reform
this decentralized and inefficient network, the Church attempted after 800 to create a European
system of social welfare. Bishops remained responsible for administering the funds earmarked for the
care of the poor and sick. Monasteries rather than decaying Episcopal cities assumed the greater role
in dispensing welfare.” (95)
“following the fall of the Roman Empire, monasteries gradually became the providers of organized
medical care not available elsewhere in Europe for several centuries. Given their organization and
location, these institutions were virtual oases of order, piety, and stability in which healing could
flourish. Monasteries also became sites of medical learning between the fifth and tenth centuries.
During the 800s, monasteries also emerged as the principal centers for the study and transmission of
ancient medical texts. By this time, the earlier intolerance toward lay medical practices had waned in
the writings of influential authors such as the Benedictine monk and historian Bede (673 – 735) in
England. While disease still was attributable to sin, natural measures to reduce physical suffering
could also be sought. . . .” (95)
“Caring for fellow monks was traditional in Christian monastic life. Disabled members of the
monastic community were given exemptions from the austere monastic living conditions. Chapter 36
of St Benedict’s rule proclaimed that ‘before all things and above all things (ante omnia et super
omnia) special care must be taken of the sick or infirm so that they may be served as if they were
Christ in person; for He himself said “I was sick and you visited me,” and “what you have done for
the least of mine, you have done for me.”’ . . . ” (96)
“Monastic hostels played increasingly important roles in providing charitable aid to the poor and
needy. Since St Benedict had encouraged hospitality for all, monasteries increasingly welcomed
guests and separated them according to class. Poor wanderers found shelter in the hospitale
pauperum, while the traveling wealthy were received and cared for in better quarters. Further
distinctions were attempted between the monasteries’ hospitality and the provision of medical aid at
its infirmaries devoted to the monks or nuns living in the institution. Poverty, malnutrition, and
exhaustion, however, often led to illness, and hospitality blended with medical attention, prompting
transfers to the infirmary or consultations with the infirmarius. . . .” (97)
“Benedict’s original rule ordered that ‘for these sick brethren let there be assigned a special room and
an attendant who is God-fearing, diligent, and solicitous.’ This monk or nun attending the sick—the
infirmarius was usually selected because of personality and practical healing skills. The latter were
acquired informally through experience, as well as through consultation of texts, medical
manuscripts, and herbals available in the monastery’s library or elsewhere. . . . The infirmarius
usually talked with patients and asked questions, checked on the food, compounded medicinal herbs,
and comforted those in need. . . .” (100)
“A rudimentary practice of surgery (‘touching and cutting’) at the monastic infirmary was usually
linked to the management of trauma, including lacerations, dislocations, and fractures. Although
these were daily occurrences, the infirmarius may not have always been comfortable practicing
surgery on his brothers, for it was always a source of considerable pain, bleeding, and infection.
Complicated wounds or injuries may have forced some monks to request the services of more
experienced local bonesetters or even barber surgeons. . . .” (103)
Risse then notes other popular healing practices of the Middle Ages that were integrated into the
monastic medical routine, including herbology, bathing (not otherwise common!), preventive
bloodletting, and diagnosis examining of pulse, urine, stool, and blood.
Particularly important was that fact that, as Risse tells us, “one of the most important functions of the
Benedictine monastery was the preparation for death, involving sick brethren who failed to recover.”
Among other things, Risse notes that “periodic visits to the sick by members continued. Some
brethren remained with the dying inmate throughout the day and night, praying and reading from the
Scriptures by candlelight. The point of this vigil was to ensure ‘proper passing’; nobody should be
left to die alone. If death became imminent, the whole monastic community was summoned and the
monks congregated around the sick on both sides of the bed alternately to pray and sing, using music
to ‘unbind’ the pain and thus provide the departing with spiritual nourishment for the journey to the
beyond. Death was usually announced by the clapping of boards or ringing of bells, with burial in the
monastic cemetery after elaborate funeral ceremonies. The deceased monk’s name and date of death
were inscribed in a memorial book, and he was henceforth included in all prayers.” (105)
Then Risse notes, again, that healing practices within the monastery were not limited to the monks,
but sometimes included poor and sick guests:
“At the hostel, meanwhile, the Benedictine rituals of prayer, rest, food, and the administration of
sacraments were also believed to be conducive to the recuperation of exhausted pilgrims, the poor,
and sick guests housed in the monastery’s hospitalium.”
Risse continues with this perceptive observation: “Resting on straw-covered floors, some of the
guests must have felt protected behind the monastery’s walls and reminded of their Christian identity
and the redemptive quality of their suffering. Acceptance and understanding were important. At a
minimum, these routines would have had a calming and reassuring effect as the visitors socialized
with each other and with members of the caring monastic community. Whether they stayed in the
infirmary or the hostel, life in the monastery was fostered by a unique therapeutic environment.”
(105)