Answering in general for continental Europe in the central middle ages, being a monk certainly was a more secure life than that of your average peasant. There was guaranteed food and shelter. There were opportunities for education (at the minimum reading, writing and basic bible study). But then again, you had to be a monk, with all that entails: no sex, no personal possessions, no talking during mealtimes, getting up in the middle of the night, every night, to pray in a cavernous, cold church. Basically no fun for the rest of your life - at least peasants got to go to parties.

Of course, all these caveats assume that you have a strict abbot. There were many monasteries where discipline was a major concern, especially as monastic orders became fabulously wealthy from donations from rich and poor alike. Successive waves of monastic reform swept across Europe in the central middle ages in the late 10th (Cluniac, Goertze and English Benedictine reforms), the early 12th (Cistercians, Augustinians, Premonstrentian and other orders) and the early 13th centuries (mendicant movements, especially the Dominican and Franciscan orders), each claiming to be a return to 'pure' apostolic poverty and discipline away from the corruption of the material world. The irony was, of course, that the stricter, more disciplined orders were wildly popular and attracted huge donations, very quickly becoming wealthy themselves.

I've written before on here about how one became a cleric in the middle ages - I can't link because I'm on mobile but if you go through my post history I'm sure you can find it. The gist of it is that although you didn't have to be noble to become a cleric, you did need to be legally free and probably needed to have some sort of family money/property. This only applied if you were a man of course: convents were much rarer and nuns seem to be drawn more (although not exclusively) from the daughters of the aristocracy. The other option for a peasant from the 12th century onwards was to become a conversus at your local Cistercian house. This involved taking vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and living in the monastery like clerical brothers, but lay coversi would work in the fields each day rather than pray or read.

The one part of your post I don't think is accurate is that monks were not at risk of being caught up in raids or warfare. Although attacking clerics was seen as deplorable in the middle ages, condemned by every source we have, it did happen. The most famous cases were in attacks by non-christian enemies, like viking or Saracen raiders, but sine many monasteries were rich and powerful they could become legitimate targets in warfare, especially if the local abbot or bishop was involved in the conflict. The best example I can think of is the fortified monastery of St-Germain just outside the city of Auxerre in central France, which was attacked and occupied by Count Landric of Nevers during his siege of the city in the Burgundian civil war in 1006. On the whole, however, monks and clerics were much less likely to be caught up in violence than peasants, though not totally immune.

So in summary, I'm not sure I'd call it cushy, but life as a monk in the central middle ages was probably more secure than life as an average peasant, if a lot more dull.