Who were these nuns?

Unfortunately I don't know this part and I hope that someone who is familiar may pop in.

What was going on in the Congo?

But I do know this part. So I'll see if I can provide some basic background. For most of the first half of the 20th century, Belgian Congo was supposedly a model colony and making it such was actually one of the stated goals of the colonial administration. When it came time for independence the average Congolese was better paid than the average for the continent. This combined with extensive natural resources led to expectations (both in the colony and without) that independence was going to make the Congo a relatively rich, stable, and successful nation.

By the time independence arrived, two major parties had formed. The MNC favored a strong central government, a national identity, and the black educated class the évolulés. Although stating that any policy was "MNC" is a bit of a misnomer. It was a big tent party, and it had wings that opposed everything I've written above. And in fact by the time I talk about below it had formally split into two major parties. The other major party was the ABAKO which favored a weak central government, regional identities, localized power, and especially the SE province of Katanga. They also had several other smaller regional parties as allies.

In late 1959 - early 1960 a conference was held to hammer out the question of independence. A six month timeframe was adopted, but most of the other questions were left unresolved. In May the first, highly charged, parliamentary elections were held. And most of the questions about the shape of the government were to be decided by this first parliament. And the initial constitution favored the strong government position of the MNC.

Of course those far from the coast and capital resented this. They also resented the fact that day-to-day existence wasn't much changed by independence. Belgian appointees and technical advisors still held a lot of authority in the new government. The expectation had been widespread that independence would see the whites leave. By early July the largely black army had started mutinying against their white officers. The government recognized the mutineers, promoted all black soldiers one rank immediately. And Congolese Joseph-Désiré Mobutu was made army chief of staff. These steps largely quelled the mutiny near the capital. But further away it broke into further violence. Initially the violence was directed at white army officers. But it soon extended to all white people. Property was destroyed, whites were killed, and, yes, rape of white women became widespread. On the 9th of July the Belgians intervened and sent in paratroops to protect the Europeans in the country. This divided the Congolese government with some welcoming the Belgians and others calling for outright war with the Belgians. Within a few days Europeans were being officially evacuated, the Belgians were shelling cities with their navy, and a civil war was brewing largely over the questions of local autonomy.

The war itself was a pretty nasty affair, as you might expect of a war which had widespread rape as early component. It eventually involved both Soviet and US advisors, contained regional and ethnic components, devastated the country, and, yes, still continued to have rape play a major role. That civil war went on for five years until Mobuto took control in a coup. But even after that other mutinies, insurrections, etc remained common recurring events.

As an overview and context to the Catholic reasoning on the use of contraceptives in rape cases, read Martin Rhonheimer's The Use of Contraceptives under Threat of Rape: An Exception? Josephinum Journal of Theology 14, no. 2 (August 2007), which is reproduced in his book Ethics of Procreation and the Defense of Human Life: Contraception, Artficial Fertilization, and Abortion (chapter 4, p133) (viewable here)

It's a laying out of the theological argument, including who argued what, when and why - i.e. 3 senior figures in 1961 who argued it was morally right and a revisit, tuning/correction and consolidation of the arguments in 1995 (in the context of the recent raping in Bosnia)

edit: I removed my simplistic and misleading summary of the reasoning

edit: Giacomo Perico's Stupro, aborto e anticoncezionali in the journal Civiltà Cattolica (1993, p37-46), which is part of the re-visitation in the 90s in the above chapter, explicitly mentions the nuns in the Congo. Google translated: "I remember how we experts took seriously the news, the appearance in the press at the beginning of the sixties, that the Pope would grant the former Belgian Congo nuns recourse to the pill"

Belgium formally granted independence to its Congo colony in June of 1960, so speaking of Belgian Congo in terms of the papacy of Paul VI (reigned 1963-1978) is a bit anachronistic.

QuickSpore and Sunagainstgold have already mentioned atrocities perpetrated during the immediate post-independence period of the Congo crisis, having to do with Katanga and Kasai secessions. I am a bit dubious about that reasoning, mostly because the State of Katanga had surrendered to UN forces (fighting on behalf of the Leopoldville government) in January of 1963, and Paul VI only became pope in June of that year.

Much more likely, the fighting in the Congo that Paul VI was responding to was the Simba rebellion from 1964-65

The Simbas were left-wing rebels espousing marxist principles and supported by the Soviet Union, Tanzania, and Cuba. They were dissatisfied with the Western orientation of the Kasavubu/Mobutu government coming out of the civil war, as well as the murder of Patrice Lumumba. Indeed, leaders of the Simba rebellion such as Pierre Mulele and Christophe Gbenye had been ministers in Lumumba's government.

The Simbas garnered attention from around the world by taking many hostages in the city of Stanleyville, including many Belgians, Americans, as well as priests and nuns both Congolese and foreign. International newspapers devoted much attention to the plight and rescue of hostages held in Stanelyville in November of 1964. Among the abuses by rebels in Stanleyville was rape against Catholic nuns.

Additionally, there were other instances where catholic priests and nuns were held hostages and subjected to abuses, including 34 nuns held in Uvira in December of 1964.

These instances happened during the papacy of Paul VI and garnered enough newspaper attention that I feel they are most likely events to prompt the action Pope Francis is talking about. Of course, it is possible that Pope Paul VI was informed by the recent history of the DRC from 1960-63 when he made a decision.

I seem to have missed the boat on answering this question, but I would like to clear up some misconceptions I see going on in this forum. It seems like what was going on has already been answered, but I'd like to get into the grit of Catholic doctrine on this.

Redemptionist Friar Brian Johnstone, a theology expert at Rome's Alphonsiana Academy, said that in the early 1960s the Vatican gave permission for religious women in the Belgian Congo to use oral contraceptives due to a high likely-hood of being raped.

On the surface, this seems contradictory to Catholic doctrine. However, it isn't. Allow me to explain: According to Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae a sexual act must consist of two parts within a valid marriage to be considered moral. It must be open to new life (procreative) and it must be unitive (unites the couple/brings them closer together). Note: This does not mean that every time a Catholic couple has sex that they have to be trying to get pregnant. It just means that they have to be having sex in a way that is open to it. This means it is okay to have sex in infertile periods during a woman's cycle (Natural Family Planning) if there is a valid reason for the couple to not have children (e.g. health, finances) because it is still considered natural. You are not doing anything to impede or prevent conception, but rather avoid it for valid reasons. I understand this is very complex. Catholics have an entire theology based around these subjects called Theology of the Body. It is very in-depth and is largely based on Humanae Vitae. Contracepting would take the whole "procreative" part out of the equation because it directly impedes and prevents conception. To the Church, it also takes out the "unitive" part of the equation. This is explained here:

"The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life. A specific and more serious moral evil is present in the use of means which have an abortive effect, impeding the implantation of the embryo which has just been fertilized or even causing its expulsion in an early stage of pregnancy." (Pontifical Council for the Family, Vademecum 'Go with me' for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life, n. 4-5.)

Here comes an even more complex part. The nuns that Paul VI granted permission to take oral contraceptives (keep in mind: preventative oral contraceptives, not plan b or anything like that) to would not have met the criteria for a valid sexual act - it isn't unitive or consensual. So, as I explained above, preventative contraception is usually immoral because it takes the "unitive" and "procreative" criteria out of the equation for sex - not because it is aborting a child. In the case of non-consensual sex, that whole "unitive" and "procreative" sex thing goes out the window. Stopping the sperm from reaching the egg in the case of rape is totally fine and moral.

So in the case of rape, the contraception is being used because the nuns never consented to sexual acts in the first place. They are sworn to celibacy. Thus, Pope John VI was acknowledging that the preventative birth control in their case was not immoral because they were not doing it to avoid procreative/unitive sex. They were trying to avoid sex altogether. However, it is important to note that if a nun were to end up pregnant from this, Humanae Vitae makes it very clear that abortion is always evil. Pope Francis even repeated this today.

If I haven't explained in an understandable format, please feel free to ask. In the meantime, I'd suggest you read two articles:

National Catholic Register

And this is a great one that helps elaborate the position further: National Catholic Reporter Heads up - the website is old and doesn't appear to be reputable. However, the article I've linked was written by an author that was once referred to by The London Tablet to be, “the most authoritative writer on Vatican affairs in the English language.”

Basically ignore this post as it does not fit the situation asked about.

European imperialism in Africa generally operated through an unholy trinity of government, business, and religion. Belgium is Catholic and Congo was a Belgian colony, so the religion was primarily Catholic. Priests and nuns were especially active in education--but this was education for conversion and submission, not education for freedom. Crucially, it was in most cases not an education that prepared them for jobs in the government and military command structure, which remained dominated by white people.

Removed in time but not so much in spirit from the days made infamous by the book King Leopold's Ghost, post-WWII Congo was to be Belgium's, and Europe's, model colony in Africa. Strong coordination between business and government combined with Congo's rich mineral deposits made it a destination for European investment--and, in fact, a surprisingly attractive emigration point for white settlers looking for a fresh start. Late 1940s and early 1950s Congo seemed like a pretty good deal for white immigrants and rulers!

Except--in their pursuit of making Congo a model for Africa, the Belgians also encouraged a very tiny sliver of the native population (Bakongo and other peoples), especially in the cities, to get a bit more of an education. You can see where this is going, which is where it went in west Africa, and north Africa, and... Basically from 1958-1960, Belgian rule in Congo collapsed swiftly, dramatically, and terribly. The Belgians went from thinking they had a 20, 30 year time frame to ease Congo gradually towards independence, to hastily arranged a transfer of power ceremony seemingly overnight.

Republic of the Congo was christened as a new nation on June 30--but widespread public anticipation of dramatic change to follow was quickly squelched. The country's command structure--the entire bureaucracy, the military leadership--was white by design and by, in fact, necessity thanks to the colonizing education program. When the (white) military leaders tried to insist that things were going to remain the same, the (black) soldiers revolted across the country.

Congo had quite a significant white population by that time, and they were the targets. Homes and businesses looted, white military officers attacked. Nuns and priests were particular targets for hatred and violence. Black Africans would also have lost their lives in large numbers--sometimes killing does not discriminate. And while occasionally Lumumba and Kasa-Vubu had some luck in getting revolting soldiers to stop, mostly they did not.

At this point, most of the white population fled. What was the European reaction? Belgium sent in troops to protect the newly-minted refugees as they tried to flee to safety in the surrounding countries and eventually back to Europe. Of course this meant bombs, gunfire, more Africans dying, more African resentment building, the cycle of violence deepening.

So why send birth control when the soldiers were helping white people get out?

Because the nuns stayed.

As /u/seringen points out, some of the nuns were Congolese, caught up in the anti-white/European/church violence. They didn't have the protection of Belgian soldiers to leave the country. (Nor can we say they would have wanted to.) Some white nuns stayed, too: in addition to education, a major responsibility for the European nuns in the Congo was medical: they were nurses, they were training Congolese nurses. They wanted to stay. They had people to help. The entire staff of the Lubutu mission was slaughtered in 1963, for example--three years after the initial waves of violence, three years after the white settlers had fled en masse.

I can't say anything more on the birth control matter--the news reports I've read say the Vatican did not publicize it at the even, even before Humanae Vitae. But that is a brief overview of why nuns, specifically, were a target amidst the broader violence in 1958-1965 Congo.

As far as I can tell, there is no evidence that any nuns received contraceptives. It seems to have been more of an exercise in testing the moral bonds of contraceptive prohibition in Catholicism.

Prior Paul VI's Humanae Vitae the Church teaching was most expressed in Pius XI's Casti Connubii which phohibited the use of contraceptives within marriage:

... any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.

Those wishing to move Church teaching on the matter posed a hypothetical concerning unmarried nuns who may be subject to rape, since they fell outside the prior teaching that only addressed sex within marriage.

One source, Christianity Today, 1966, Volume 10, Issues 14-25, page 31 states--

The Roman Catholic press carried the story during the Congo revolutions that three recognized theologians in Rome had concurred in an opinion that nuns in the Congo missions could legitimately take the pill to prevent pregnancy in case they might be raped. In this decision, the theologians, with the apparent approval of the Vatican…

Do note that these were theologians, not the pope, and that they issued opinions, not anything that carries official weight. For example, before Humanae Vitae was issued, there was the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control that initially gave approval for use of contraceptives but their decision was advisory only and did not carry legal force within the Catholic Church.

We find the identity of these three theologians in Catholics and Birth Control: Contemporary Views on Doctrine, by Dorthy Dunbar Bromley, 1965--

One specific use of the pill as a contraceptive has been approved by a number of Catholic theologians – that is, when a woman is threatened with rape, as were Catholic nuns in the Congo. Noting that it had received queries on this question, the Rome publication, Studi Cattolici, published in 1961 the unanimous views of Msgr. Pietro Palazzini, secretary of the Sacred Congregation, Professor Franz Hurth, S.J., of the Pontifical Gregorian University, and Msgr. Ferdinando Lambruschini of the Pontifical Lateran University.

Still yet today there is no ruling on use of contraceptives outside of marriage. Fornication, rape, and other such acts are already deemed sinful by the Catholic Church, and so it seems there is no urgency to discuss other aspects of an already sinful act.

Hello everyone,

In this thread, there have been a large number of incorrect, speculative, or otherwise disallowed comments, including many asking about the deleted comments, which merely compounds the issue. As such, they were removed by the mod-team. Please, before you attempt answer the question, keep in mind our rules concerning in-depth and comprehensive responses.

Answers that do not meet the standards we ask for will be removed.

Additionally, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with off topic conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, I would ask that they be directed to modmail, or a META thread. Thank you!