Did anybody deny that? (Real question: I hadn't heard of anybody denying that, but perhaps you have more information.)
Here's an article about Catholic use of contraception in the case of rape: Note Luke Gormally quote. (LINK) Gormally, a sound, conservative Catholic moral philosopher and a son-in-law of contraceptive opponent Elizabeth Anscombe, is likewise a learned advocate of the Church's changeless teachings on chastity.
The case of the nuns in 1960 in the Cong did not involve Pope Paul VI, nor a "ruling" made by any other pope. It was simply a clarification of the fact that the SIN of contraception is, precisely, the sin of choosing a disordered sex act, in this case, an intentionally sterilized act.
The fact is, anyplace where women are threatened by rape --- Congo 1960, more recently in the war in Bosnia, or any other circumstance --- using a contraceptive, e.g. a barrier method like a diaphragm, is as justified as using a bullet-proof vest.
Wearing a diaphragm does not involve a desire to be sexually assaulted, any more than wearing body armor involves a desire to be shot at. It is entirely defensive. It does not involve choosing to engage in a forbidden act.
So is it OK for single Catholic women, who have no intention of sexual intercourse until sacramental marriage, and residing in Syria and Nigeria (and Juarez and Chicago) to take the Pill?
I'm asking again, do you have any documentation of said "ruling"?
Today is the first I've heard of it and Francis is known for making up stuff up out of thin air.
Finally, if it didn't involve Paul VI, why did Francis say it did?
The topic is not rape. It’s birth defects. Shame on Francis for comparing it to rapes and shame on those who defend his rationalizing.