The Making of the Land Heritage of Religious Missions: A Legacy Between Land Sanctuarization, Ecclesiastical Governmentality, and Territorial (Re)Configurations in Central Africa

Abstract

The making of a land patrimony for the benefit of religious missions is profoundly linked to territorial construction in the colonies but is rarely examined from the angle of ecclesiastical governmentality over the ceded lands. This analysis highlights three complementary processes for understanding the role of religious mission land heritage in territorial reconfigurations. First, this article examines the process of “land sanctuarization”, which materializes territorial anchoring through the crystallization of land rights granted to religious missions over customary lands previously presumed to be “vacant”. Next, it explores the formation of an “ecclesiastical dominium”, manifested in the dismantling of state missions and their free transfer, explicit or tacit, to religious missions under concession or agreement regimes. This reveals the exercise of state power over the land heritage of religious missions, positioning them as structuring axes and administrative intermediaries for public services, thus giving rise to an ecclesiastical governmentality that drives territorial production and reconfiguration. Finally, postcolonial dynamics reveal the resurgence of new spatial polarities shaped by the complexity of evolving religious actors along the center–periphery axis of a recomposing territorialization. This study underscores the importance of a transversal approach to better govern the land legacies of religious missions, fostering a pluralistic reterritorialization of postcolonial societies in central Africa.

1. Introduction

The establishment of religious missions in Central Africa, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), occurred within an institutional context where these missions, both Catholic and Protestant, played a fundamental role in territorial organization. Missionaries were not merely religious actors; from the dawn of European territorial occupation in Africa, they also served as explorers, aiding the development of international territorial claims¹. Ecclesiastical establishment was, therefore, not limited to the spiritual and educational spheres, but also involved large-scale land appropriation, which was carried out by marginalizing traditional land management systems. Colonization introduced a land tenure system whereby the Independent State of Congo granted to Leopold II and subsequently the Belgian state, as the colonial authority, considered itself the owner of all ‘vacant and masterless’ land [2,3]. This policy enabled vast tracts of land to be transferred to the religious missions, giving them lasting control over essential resources. The colonial administration legitimized the allocation of land to religious missions through a series of ordinances and decrees. The 1885 ordinance on “vacant” land set the tone, while an agreement between the EIC and the Holy See provided for the granting of large areas of land to each religious mission, free of charge and in perpetuity (Agreement of 26 May 1906). This principle was established as early as the Independent State of Congo (EIC) by the decree of 1 July 1885, confirming that so-called vacant land came under the domain of the State. Séverin Mugangu, speaking of the links between land policy and religious policy, notes that during the first fifteen years of the Independent State of Congo (EIC), up until around 1900, the authorities granted the religious missions vast land concessions, sometimes as much as 5000 hectares, free of charge and in perpetuity. These grants were intended to strengthen the State’s influence over Congolese territory while encouraging religious congregations to set up missions there. At a time when Belgian public opinion was not very favorable to King Leopold II’s African ambitions, the prospect of benefiting from vast tracts of land nevertheless represented a considerable attraction for many Catholic religious congregations favored by Leopold II’s policy. Mugangu notes, however, that from 1903 onwards, this policy was reversed under pressure from Protestants, who denounced the unequal treatment of Catholic and Protestant missions, the latter having been confined to the same areas for several decades. The Convention concluded between the EIC and the Holy See on 26 May 1906 reaffirmed the principle of the free and perpetual ownership of land for the Catholic missions, while at the same time limiting the areas allocated: these were set at 100 hectares suitable for cultivation, with the possibility of extending this to 200 hectares depending on the needs and size of the missions [4] (pp. 63–66). As observed by Briffaerts, “the administration encouraged missions to engage in the construction of new schools while granting them substantial subsidies in order to exert greater control over them. Compared to the 1906 Concordat, the Belgian administration thus strengthened the relationship between the colonial state and the ‘national missions’ (Belgian Catholic missions) by instituting a twenty-year subsidy regime in exchange for the management of the education sector” [5], cited by [6].

This process of land cession took place at the expense of local land management structures based on customary law [7,8,9]. Father Camille Kpongo notes the existence of land conflicts between indigenous populations and religious missions in several Congolese dioceses, although in his work, he focuses his analyses on the case of the Diocese of Budjala in western Congo. He notes that tensions over land ownership involving the indigenous populations, the colonial authorities, the Catholic Church, and, later, the Congolese authorities, date back to 1889, when the first Catholic missions were established in the Budjala territory. These conflicts had their origins in the expropriation of land from local communities by the Belgian colonial administration for the benefit of the missionaries. Although this land became part of the ecclesiastical patrimony, the way it was managed did not allow the local populations to derive any tangible benefit from it, and this is still fueling land claims today. Since then, Congolese legislators have never established a legal framework capable of resolving this dispute once and for all [10]. Similar situations are observable across numerous Congolese dioceses, where disputes over land boundaries, ownership, or property rights are frequently reported in the Congolese media. These conflicts often involve the Church in opposition to private individuals, local communities, or even state institutions.

At the same time, religious heritages have established themselves as structuring axes of the territories. The legacy of missionary landholding in the DRC illustrates a form of dominium through which the Church has established itself as a major land player, through state intermediation, consolidating a landholding inherited from Belgian colonization, and over which it has exercised public authority in terms of concessions of public services under a contractual regime [11,12]. This role was also reinforced by the fact that the missionaries were mediators in the production and dissemination of knowledge in territories they were evangelizing. In their daily lives, the missionaries were also mediators who facilitated the flow of information within the missions, resolved community conflicts, and negotiated practical solutions, as indicated by the application of the accommodation method [13]. What emerges is an exercise of power that has been perpetuated by post-colonial legal ambiguity by placing the Church in a paradoxical position: the social mediator and holder of contested land. In this context, the question of ecclesiastical land tenure in the DRC remains a major political and social issue insofar as it has a considerable impact on the dominant forms of territorialization: the Church is omnipresent in the processes of territorial development around educational and health matters. The appropriation of land by religious missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is part of a wider process of dominium, i.e., the power to possess and exploit.

From an epistemological standpoint, this article seeks to construct knowledge about the links between territorial legacies and the land heritage of religious missions by analyzing them structurally, complementing recent studies that have not integrated the long-term patrimonial question of religious missions [14,15]. The central hypothesis is that missionary penetration did not merely influence the religious imaginations of populations, but also profoundly altered land organization and spatial configurations, and by extension, territory. This approach builds on the idea that missions, through massive land concessions and the reproduction of European architectural models, actively participated in structuring colonized spaces. Missions did not merely disseminate beliefs, but also influenced spatial transformations through the construction of religious infrastructures and their integration into urban and rural structures. This spatial transformation dynamic should not be viewed solely as a tool of colonial administrators, but rather as a hybrid process where the Church, through its infrastructures, played a decisive role in reconfiguring colonized territories. The study of territorial legacies must thus move beyond the reductive vision of a purely administrative project to incorporate the ecclesiastical dimension, which has contributed to structuring and transforming spaces at both urban and rural levels. It is a reading of territory as a space where religious and colonial actors intersected and acted in concert, sometimes obscuring the impact of this interaction on spatial and power dynamics. The research problem seeks to examine how the legacy of religious missions, particularly Catholic missions as key actors in the Belgian colonial project, has shaped spatial organization, land tenure systems, and territorial production, and how these legacies have transformed over time. The analysis is guided by the following research question: To what extent have religious heritage sites (such as cathedrals, chapels, churches, cemeteries, seminaries, colleges, and high schools) influenced the configuration of public and social spaces through their impact on land use, real estate, architecture, and urban structures?

2. Materials and Methods

Methodologically, this study relies on a combined historical and sociopolitical (territorial studies) approach to analyze the land, architectural, and artistic dynamics of religious heritage constituted with the support of Belgian colonial power in Congo. These methods are supplemented by documentary sources and the spatial turn approach. The spatial turn, an interdisciplinary current emphasizing the importance of space in analyzing social, cultural, and historical phenomena, allows us to examine its appropriation, use, and control by religious missions, particularly the influence of religious affiliations on appropriated territories, collective memories, and symbolic practices [16]. Regarding documentary sources, this study analyzes the reports from the Belgian colonial administration to understand the logic of land concessions and missionary territorialization, as well as official documents from Catholic missions on land acquisition. This study also examines doctrinal sources through the analysis of scientific publications (articles and books) related to the establishment of religious missions and the diffusion of their implantation models and their impact on territorial production (urbanism and rurality).

The case study of land allocations to religious missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1933 rests on a strategic methodological choice. Situated at the heart of the Belgian colonial period, this year offers an ideal observation point: it escapes the fragility of the early decades of colonial installation and precedes the turbulence of the late colonial regime. In this sense, 1933 constitutes a “median moment” where land allocation policies, the consolidation of missionary power, and the territorial strategies of the colonial state reached a fully assumed institutional and geopolitical equilibrium. Focusing on a single year limits biases related to data dispersion and provides a clear, well-documented empirical field. By drawing on precise colonial archives (administrative reports and decrees), the 1933 case study offers a rigorous and replicable analytical model. This case study thus paves the way for diachronic comparisons, enabling the measurement of continuities and ruptures in religious land policies throughout colonization and the persistence of these logics in contemporary postcolonial territorial configurations.

3. Results

3.1. The Policy of Land Sanctuarization Through Land Allocations to Religious Missions

3.1.1. “Land Sanctuarization”: Definition, Genesis, and Scope in Colonial and Postcolonial Congolese Context

Land appropriation by religious missions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) was not limited to the granting of vast land concessions by the colonial administration. It took the form of a structuring spatial process we term “land sanctuarization”. This concept captures the dynamic whereby lands initially ceded to religious missions became institutionally protected spaces, gradually transformed into inalienable and enduring land heritage under the stewardship of Catholic dioceses and Protestant ecclesiastical posts. Land sanctuarization is thus both a legal and symbolic consolidation of religious land capital and a means of locking these spaces against future contestation or questioning. This phenomenon finds legitimacy in the idea of sacred land destined for evangelical missions and the Church’s social action. But it was also a strategic lever, enabling congregations to build a robust economic heritage, difficult to challenge by customary powers or local communities.

The notion of “sanctuarization” refers to a process whereby a given space is placed under a specific protection regime, preventing or limiting any claims, transfers, or transformations of its land status. While this notion is primarily used in studies on nature conservation and the protection of heritage spaces, cf. [17,18], its application to religious and ecclesiastical domains reflects a contextual adaptation. Here, land sanctuarization denotes the consolidation of land heritage by dioceses, where the sacred and institutional dimensions of land assets contribute to their perpetuation and inalienability in public space. This phenomenon was historically constructed in the DRC through the legacy of colonial missionary concessions, which, once integrated into diocesan structures, acquired a quasi-permanent status, reinforced by legal protections (civil and canonical) and administrative provisions. In this framework, ecclesiastical land sanctuarization is not limited to spiritual anchoring, but becomes a strategic lever of territorial governance, redefining relations between the Church, the state, and local communities.

3.1.2. A Colonial Genesis Conceived as a Territorial Anchoring Strategy and a Spatial Occupation Lever for Ecclesiastical Power

The analysis of colonial archives confirms the existence of a planned and massive allocation policy under the guise of “vacant lands” as a device for legalizing and legitimizing these free cessions, often made unilaterally². Land concessions to Catholic (and Protestant) missions appear as instruments of territorial anchoring: lands ceded free of charge or under highly favorable conditions, often located in strategic zones (railway junctions, agricultural or mining basins, and administrative corridors). These lands were allocated with the implicit awareness that they would durably serve population supervision and support effective territorial occupation [19]. In return, missions committed to establishing structuring institutions (schools, hospitals, and seminaries) that reinforced colonial authority. Ecclesiastical land sanctuarization is thus also a tool of territorial governance. It structures space by favoring the Church’s permanent presence in local affairs management, enabling it to wield parallel power, sometimes more legitimate in the eyes of communities than that of the state. These inalienable lands became local power bases and economic resources through diocesan farm revenues, urbanized land rents, and educational and healthcare activities.

3.1.3. The Crystallization of Acquired Land Rights Through the Transition from Missionary Domains to Diocesan Heritage

After independence, these concessions did not disappear; they were absorbed into diocesan structures, integrated into ecclesiastical cadastral mappings, and consolidated by hybrid legal protections: canon law, civil provisions inherited from the colonial regime, and the absence of clear mechanisms for restitution to communities. This phenomenon led to the crystallization of sacralized land capital, often preserved in a public space without the possibility of reallocation or redistribution. In this process, sanctuarization is not merely an administrative lock; it becomes a performative act: by their inscription in ecclesiastical registers and their use for cultic and social purposes, these spaces become inaccessible to customary claims.

3.2. Land Ownership and Overall Distribution

The table in bellow shows land allocations in suburban areas by decree for 1933 [20]. These allocations fall into three main categories.

First, the religious heritage. These lands have been ceded free of charge to numerous missions, congregations, and religious associations (Catholic or Protestant). These include the Congrégation des Missionnaires des Scheut, the Mission des RR. PP. Prémontrés, the Capuchin Fathers, the Missionaries of Africa (White Fathers), the Order of Saint Benedict, etc. Approximate total: 20,383 hectares. Percentage: approximately 82.6% of the total.

Then there were the private concessions. Some concessions, although sometimes granted free of charge, benefited individuals (often deserving former civil servants or agents)—for example, Seynaeve, Beck, Spagliosi, Cornélius Albertus, Drouisi, Delaey, and Mamet. Approximate total: 2165 hectares. Percentage: approximately 8.8% of the total.

Finally, concessions to companies and businesses. Allocations were made to commercial or industrial companies (e.g., Société en nom collectif “Van Vliet et Joannides”, S.A. Industrielle et Commerciale-SISOMAC, S.A. Belgika, Compagnie Cotonnière Congolaise, etc.), mainly for the economic exploitation of resources and the development of certain colonial activities. Approximate total: 2119 hectares. Percentage: approximately 8.6% of the total.

It is particularly striking to note that, thanks to the allocation of a vast estate (a cession of 16,700 hectares granted to the Congregation of the Missionaries of Scheut), the land allocated to religious heritage represented the vast majority (almost 83%) of the total area allocated in 1933.

An analysis of the table reveals a land distribution policy that was strongly geared towards supporting religious missions, which were allocated almost all the land. This allocation rationale, which placed the spiritual and educational dimension at the heart of the colonial project, was juxtaposed with much smaller individual or corporate allocations that were not without economic and patrimonial stakes.

These figures in the table corroborate the state of the literature. On this subject, Jan Briffaerts notes the following: “Traditionally it is assumed that the colonisation of the Belgian Congo was the result of a convergence of three players: church, business and state. Each had its own interests and relied on the two others to support it. In order to understand the educational organisation properly it is only necessary to focus on two of these three players. The relationship between the state and the missionaries was certainly not unambiguous. The missionaries were divided into two large groups, the Catholics, by far the majority in the Congo and the Protestants, traditionally well represented in Africa. This is unlike the situation in Belgium where the catholic church had developed to become the official state religion since independence and completely controlled education. The colonial administration was the requesting party for the collaboration with the missionaries, which does not mean that the relationship with those missionaries was always free from criticism or unchanging” [5].

3.3. Religious Heritage and Missionary Territorialization Strategies

The analysis of the table above reveals interesting elements regarding the implantation strategy of religious missions at three levels of “missionary territorialization”.

3.3.1. Diffusion of European Civilizational Values, Including in the Political Economy of Territorial Production

The immense extent of ceded lands, far exceeding the convenient square meters for building a church or chapel, implies that evangelization was another expression of a new territorial organization model that gradually marginalized so-called customary powers and ancestral modes of local territorial production. Thus, the primacy of new territorial actors solidified, with land exploitation that seemed purely ecclesiastical but opened a new agrarian dynamic in which missionaries, beneficiaries of these spaces, played a crucial role beyond their religious roles.

Table 1. Suburban land ceded and granted by decree in 1933.

Names of Assignees or Licensees	Sales or Concessions	Site Location	Surface Area Ha. A. C.	Date of Decree
Congregation of the Missionaries of the	Free transfer	Bokala-Taketa, Lomami	4 - -	20/1/33
Gareganze Evangelical Mission	Free transfer	Tengo (C.S.K.), Tanganika	10 - -	20/1/33
Mission of the RR. PP. Prémontrés	Free transfer	Lolo,	10 - -	20/1/33
Society of Missionaries of Africa (White Fathers)	Free transfer	Vumba Mombre (Maniema)	10 - - 10 - -	20/1/33
Van Vliet et Joannides general partnership	Concession	Klm. 93/95 2th Section C.F.C, Maniema	320 - -	2/2/33
Mission of the Capuchin Fathers	Free transfer	Abumombazi, Congo-Ubangi	200 - -	10/2/33
Society of Priests of the Sacred Heart	Free transfer	Bomili,	9 99 -	10/2/33
Seynaeve, Pierre. Former Agent, Merit, Colony	Free concession	Kanda-Kand	500 - -	10/2/33
Society of Missionaries of the Sacred Heart	Free transfer	Wafania,	50 - -	10/2/33
S.A. Industrielle et Commerciale—SISOMAC	Concession	Boso-Djafo,	500 - -	10/2/33
Methodist Episcopal Congo Mission	Free transfer	Tunda, Maniema	96 - -	16/2/33
Evangelical Mission of Ubangui, Belgian Congo	Free transfer	Kala	52 - -	16/2/33
S.A.	Concession	Kibombo, Maniema	212 46 -	16/2/33
S.A. Industrielle et Commerciale—SISOMAC	Concession	Bosandju, Congo-Ubangui	500 - -	16/2/33
Congregation of the Missionaries of	Free transfer	Ibeke-Ngembo, Lake Leopold II	100 - -	16/2/33
Association of the St Spirit and the St Heart of Mary	Free transfer	Kibombo, Maniema	100 - -	21/2/33
The Congo Union Mission of Seventh Day Adventists	Free transfer	Km.63 road	63 - -	21/2/33
Beck, Jean-Joseph	Concession	Malela, Maniema	212 50 -	21/2/33
Spagliosi, Camille, former civil servant. Colony	Concession	Kunzulu, Bas-Congo	500 - -	24/2/33
Norwegian Baptist Mission	Free transfer	Monga, Bondo, Uélé	40 - -	24.2.33
Association of the Sisters of Charity of Ghent	Free transfer	Kimpese, Bas-Congo	6 5 12 -	24/2/33
Association of Missionaries of Africa (White Fathers)—Apostolic Vicariate of Kivu	Free transfer	Windja, Chagala, Bumpeta, (Kivu)	10 - - 10 - - 10 - -	24/2/33
Africa Inland Mission	Free transfer	Gondeia, Kibali-Ituri	78 - -	24/2/33
Catholic Mission of the Franciscan PPs	Free transfer	Kilwa (C.S.K), Haut-Katanga	159 - -	24/2/33
Lake Albert Mission	Free transfer	Aru Zi Rona Gote (Kibali, Ituri)	2 - - 5 - - 5 - - 5 - -	24/2/33
Association of Canons of the Holy Sepulchre	Free transfer	Likati, Uélé	5 - -	28/3/33
Congregation of the Missionaries of Mil-Hill	Free transfer	Mampoko, Tshuapa	67 57 50	28/3/33
Compagnie Cotonnière Congolaise	Concession	Niaki, Congo-Ubangi	228 53 -	28/3/33
Baptist Missionary Society Corporation	Free transfer	Bandu, Province	2 - -	28/3/33
Congregation of the Missionaries	Free transfer	Lokotu, P. de Stanleyville	100 - -	28/3/33
S.A. “Belgika”	Concession	Agameto, Uélé	250 - -	28/3/33
Order of Saint Benedict	Free transfer	Kasenga(CSK), Haut-Katanga	56 - -	26/4/33
Cornelius Albertus	Concession	Kitumbili, C.N.Ki.	53 - -	2/6/33
Society of Missionaries of Africa (White Fathers)	Free transfer	Moba Kikondwe riv.Kisankile. riv.Mutufita Kabula Kaombe. Kabeke. Kayabala. Nyunzu Kipale (TANGANIKA)	25 - 4 50 - 7 50 - - 5. - - 10 - - 10 - - 10 - - 10 - - 10 - - 12. - -	2/6/33
Association of Missionaries of Africa (White Fathers)—Apostolic Vicariate of Kivu	Free transfer	Irambo Bulumbu Bihembe Kikoma Chirwa-Kadegedja Ruvomika Butwasenge Chondo Kaniamashuli Katuhunda (KIVU)	10 - - 10 - - 10 - - 10 - - 10 - - 10 - - 10 - - 5 - - 10 - - 10 - -	7/6/33
Association of Missionaries of Africa (White Fathers)	Free transfer	Longa-Nzoa (CSK) (TANGANIKA)	10 - -	7/6/33
Lake Albert Mission	Free transfer	Esoko (Kibali-Ituri)	10 - -	7/6/33
Baptist Missionary Corporation	Free transfer	Gongo-Mosenger	1 96 -	7/6/33
Congo Balolo Mission	Free transfer	Tamundjumbe,	25 - -	7/6/33
Africa Inland Mission	Free transfer	Linga (Kibali-Ituri)	19 - -	7/6/33
Association of Missionaries of Africa (White Fathers)—Apostolic Vicariate of Kivu	Free transfer	Kasi Nyakakoba Kalole Kichi Ngomasi Lutobogo Muguru Chirwa-Bugerwa Nginzi Kamanyola Mwiru Luvungi Nzulo KIVU	10 - - 10 - - 10 - - 10 - - 10 - - 10 - - 10 - - 10 - - 10 - – 10 - - 3 50 – 5 - - 2 - - - 62 50	7/6/33
Society of Missionaries of Africa (White Fathers)	Free transfer	Lisobola Katomwa Kisande-Kabole Kibobwa Kiniongoro (C.S.K.) TANGANIKA	64 - - 60 - - 60 - - 45 - - 28 75 -	11/7/33
Congregation of the Dominicans	Free transfer	Niangara (Uélé)	100 - -	11/7/33
Garanganze Evangelical Mission	Free transfer	Katelwa (C.S.K)	4 50 -	11/7/33
Drouisi, Paul, former merit civil servant. Colony	Free concession	Seda (Bas-Congo)	150 - -	11/7/33
Society of Missionaries of Africa (White Fathers)	Free transfer	Kikango (C.S.K).	11 50 -	11/7/33
Order of Saint Benedict	Free transfer	Mobake Kasari (C.S.K.)	58 - -	14/7/33
Congregations of the Missionaries of Scheut	Concession	Kasai District (Lusambo)	16,700 - -	24/7/33
Baptist Missionary Society Corporation	Free transfer	Bololo, Bas-Congo	- 2 90	24/7/33
American Presbyterian Congo Mission	Free transfer	Shore of Lake Munkamba, SANKURU	20 - -	24/7/33
Kasaï Company	Free transfer	Mushuri, Kwango	10 - -	12/9/33
Delaey, Julien, former merited civil servant, Colonie	Free concession	Kiswishwi (C.S.K).	200 - -	27/11/.33
Congregation of the Missionaries of Mill-Hill	Free transfer	Yambongo (TSHUAPA)	100 - -	5/12/33
Mamet, Maurice, former civil servant, merit, Colonie	Free concession	Mpotia, Tshuapa	500 - -	5/12/33
Association of Missionary Sisters of the Holy Heart of Mary	Free transfer	Monga, Uélé	11 75 -	5/12/33
Association of Missionaries of Africa (White Fathers)—Apostolic Vicariate of Kivu	Free concession	Ishamuhiro, Kivu	26 90 -	5/12/33
Svenska Baptist	Free transfer	Djabaju, Lake Leopold II	6 - -	5/12/33
Heart of Africa Mission	Free transfer	Adzangwe Kwengo Bangoa Omoni Botongwe Wamba (Stanleyville Province)	9 - - 7 - - 2 - - 7 - - 3 - - 4 - -	5/12/33
Society of Missionaries of Africa (White Fathers)	Free transfer	M’Pala (C.S.K).	126 - -	9/12/33
Catholic Mission of the Franciscan Fathers	Free transfer	Kimpuki, Uélé	60 - -	9/12/33
Congregation of the Missionaries of Mill-Hill	Free transfer	Baringa, Tshuapa	100 - -	9/12/33
Gareganze Evangelical Mission	Free transfer	Kamubangwe(CS.K)	5 - -	14/12/33

Source: [20] it is an official archive of Kingdom of Belgium.

documents that almost all land allocations in 1933 were made to religious institutions, missions, congregations, and associations. These allocations, often granted free of charge, reflect a colonial policy aimed at supporting evangelizing activity and installing agrarian structures in conquered territories. For example, allocations to the Congregation of Scheut Missionaries or the Mission of the Premonstratensian Fathers illustrate the desire to durably anchor missionary action in strategic zones, with a clear preference for Belgian “national missions”. The spatial distribution of lands was not random, but followed a spatial turn logic: the colonial administration targeted symbolically and strategically essential spaces to ensure the economic and social sustainability and visibility of the missionary work [6,21]. As Daniel Mukoko Samba observes, “the establishment of Catholic and Protestant missions, accompanied by schools and dispensaries, was also at the origin of urban creations like Inkisi, Kimpese, etc.” [22] (p. 64).

3.3.2. Implantation of Structuring Institutions

Land cessions, as observed in Table 1, aimed not only to grant land spaces to religious missions, but also to enable them to build durable educational, healthcare, and religious infrastructures that would shape local and regional landscapes. For example, the allocation of 200 hectares to the Capuchin Fathers in Abumombazi (Congo-Ubangi) or 100 hectares to the Congregation of Scheut Missionaries in Lokotu (Stanleyville Province) were not mere land endowments, but the constitution of true centers of spiritual, educational, and healthcare outreach. The table also shows strategic cessions of varying sizes, allowing missions to ensure a durable presence and become structuring poles for local populations: the Mission of the Premonstratensian Fathers received 100 hectares in Lolo (Congo-Ubangi), the Franciscan Fathers obtained 159 hectares in Kilwa (Haut-Katanga), and the Society of the Priests of the Sacred Heart had 9 hectares and 99 areas in Bomili (Stanleyville), all micro-centers of missionary action. These spaces were not chosen at random: a careful geo-territorial reading reveals that most of these free-transfers were anchored in central spaces or major communication corridors, such as colonial roads (e.g., the cession to the Congo Union Mission of Seventh Day Adventist at 63 km on the Lubutu–Kirundu road) along the second section of the Congo Railway in Maniema. This strategic spatial positioning allowed religious missions to articulate with colonial infrastructures, reinforcing their role as intermediaries and local relays of administrative authority. Moreover, the differentiated size of allocations reveals the hierarchization of congregations’ roles. Large allocations (several hundred hectares) were reserved for missions perceived as the most structuring and strategic, often Catholic and Belgian, while more modest surfaces were granted to more peripheral or Protestant missions, sometimes with a logic of the “complementary” coverage of marginal spaces. Table 1 highlights a coherent missionary planning project: each ceded space became a node in a regional institutional network, capable of modulating the social and educational organization of colonized populations and participating in the fine management of colonial territory. This missionary geo-architecture, supported by key infrastructures (roads, navigable rivers, and railway lines), ensured both the visibility of the colonial order and its efficiency in structuring social relations [23].

3.3.3. Religious Territorialization as an Instrument of Governmentality

The conceded lands were not merely land gifts, but vectors of spatial organization and sociopolitical supervision. The implantation of religious buildings was part of a missionary territorialization logic, whereby the Church acted as a relay of the civilizational project [24] and structuring space [25]. Missions, installed in carefully chosen spaces, acted as articulation points between colonial authority and local populations. This intermediary role went far beyond mere evangelization: it was about structuring space into a network of cultural, moral, and administrative obedience. In this device, the place occupied by Catholic congregations is central. The allocations to the White Fathers, for example, clearly show an anchoring in major economic and political zones, such as Katanga under the management of the CSK (Special Committee of Katanga) and the East in Kivu, under the authority of the CNKI (National Committee of Kivu). These implantations were not neutral: they consolidated the presence of the Catholic Church in key spaces, contributing to structuring the circulation of resources, information, and social norms according to pyramidal logic from the center to the periphery. Conversely, Protestant missions, less favored, were assigned to secondary or peripheral zones. This “spatial cantonment” of Protestants, in regions such as Uélé, Tshuapa, or secondary corridors (like the Lubutu–Kirundu road for Adventists), assigned them a complementary role, often limited to supervising populations in less strategic spaces. This differentiated spatial distribution produces what could be called a hierarchical confessional geography: at the heart, Catholic institutions participated directly in the fabrication of the “colonial center”, while on the margins, Protestants consolidated the colonial grip in shadow zones, serving as flexible relays in more remote territories. Thus, territorial control through religious missions did not follow a homogeneous model, but a subtle architecture where the place and function of congregations were spatially determined and politically calibrated. This configuration left lasting traces in postcolonial territorial organization, where marked contrasts persist today between historically Catholic central zones strongly institutionalized and peripheral spaces marked by the flexibility of Protestant implantations and their adaptive capacity [26,27]. In this context, the ecclesiastical dominium analyzed earlier, understood as the possession and legal and functional management of lands by religious congregations, leads to an ecclesiastical governmentality³ when these spaces are no longer mere concessions, but become structuring levers of social and territorial organization. The data show that the hierarchization of land allocations, backed by a network of strategic infrastructures, allowed religious missions to act as planning agents, disciplining and supervising colonized populations (even after the country’s accession to international sovereignty). By occupying key territorial nodes, these missions participated in the fabrication of a social and educational order aligned with state objectives while inscribing their power in the materiality of spaces. Thus, the ecclesiastical dominium becomes an instrument of ecclesiastical governmentality, where the Church structures territoriality, administers local societies, and extends colonial state authority through spiritual and pedagogical relays. The diocese in the postcolonial era and its parish subdivisions ensure the continuity of this scheme, alleviating the weaknesses of the formal state.

4. Discussion: Postcolonial Issues of Religious Heritage and Their Impact on the Reterritorialization of State–Church–Society Relations

As early as 2017, Jean-Louis Gerard and Judith Le Maire questioned: “What meaning can the notion of heritage have in the context of former colonial territories? What, in these contexts, can be ‘labeled’ as heritage? What does heritage-making politically ‘produce’? Is there a meaning, and if so, what is it, in designating cultural elements from non-Western traditions as heritage?” [29]. These questions remain highly relevant, particularly in this section, which examines them from a territorial perspective: To what extent have the landed (and real-estate) properties of religious missions been territorialized in a postcolonial context? In other words, what are the postcolonial issues of religious heritage that shape the (re)territorialization of State–Church–Society relations? We will begin by analyzing the land transfer records to grasp their broader contemporary implications.

Indeed, the analysis of the land data in Table 1 highlights the vast estates allocated to religious institutions⁴, fueling ongoing debates regarding their legitimacy and future in a postcolonial context marked by demographic growth and land scarcity, giving rise to so-called “landless peasant” social categories [30]. Initially structured around issues of restitution and local community claims, these debates become more complex when integrating spatial analysis, particularly the misalignment between cadastral records and actual land occupation. This discrepancy exacerbates land conflicts involving the Catholic Church across several Congolese dioceses. In numerous rural parishes, village enclaves have been established on Church-owned lands, where local actors resist recognizing the Church’s cadastral boundaries, arguing that these lands have always belonged to their ancestors.

Furthermore, the geo-territorial analysis of Table 1 reveals a differentiated structuring of the colonial space along confessional lines. Catholic missions, heavily supported by the Belgian colonial administration, were privileged for settlements in central and highly strategic areas with emerging urban zones, regions near commercial corridors, and railway junctions (such as along the C.F.C., Chemin de Fer du Congo). These locations not only granted Catholic missions extensive land control, but also positioned them as key actors in the material and symbolic production of the colony. This spatial positioning reflects a broader institutionalization process, whereby Catholic congregations became de facto “religious governors” of central spaces, contributing to the socio-administrative structuring of the territory.

At independence, newly formed Congolese dioceses sought to distance themselves from this colonial centrality and expand beyond the original missionary zones, although they largely inherited the colonial-era lands, often underutilized. The increasing number of Congolese diocesan priests has enabled dioceses to assert full control over their ecclesiastical jurisdictions, covering the entire country in a form of “parallel sub-governments”. While the Congolese state is administratively divided into 26 provinces (formerly 11 before 2015), the Catholic Church operates through 47 dioceses, extending its presence even into regions where state institutions struggle to maintain control (Figure 1).

Post scriptum: In 2022, a new diocese was created in the DRC. In a communiqué issued by the National Episcopal Conference of Congo, it was stated that Pope Francis had erected the diocese of Tshilomba in the Democratic Republic of Congo, with a territory resulting from the dismemberment of the diocese of Luiza. We now have 48 dioceses rather than the 47 shown in the diagram. The diagram also shows that the Diocese of Luiza has 154 priests. These will be divided between the former diocese of Luiza and the new diocese of Tshilomba in the ecclesiastical province of Kananga.

The configuration of the Congolese Catholic Church explains its political strength in a spatial context where its territorial network is more attuned to the sociological and cultural realities of territorial organization. This stands in contrast to the numerous provinces that have been created based on territorial logics largely dictated by the necessities of the political economy rather than sociohistorical integration. Priests remain, in most cases, key sociopolitical intermediaries of the State, a situation that paradoxically persists despite decolonization and the reform of the modern State. The integrated structure of the Church is one of the crucial elements of Congolese national unity, whereas political ideologies, economic interests, and ethnic divisions constantly threaten the unity and sovereignty of Congo.

The Catholic Church has contributed to the construction of a national identity through a process of memorialization [32], which remains underexplored as one of the major explanations for the failure of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to disintegrate, despite the rebellions that have fragmented the country for decades. In many dioceses, Catholic Church structures carry out important ecclesiastical missions, and the parish priest (or Protestant pastor) often transcends his religious role, becoming involved, sometimes unwillingly, in civil and even state affairs due to the lack of effective public representatives. This legacy profoundly influences territorial production, maintaining continuities in representations and imaginaries of colonial territories into the postcolonial era.

To illustrate the missionary impact on territorial development, a resident of Bukavu in eastern Congo shared the following testimony of gratitude on his Facebook account in homage to the highly dynamic Father Claude Maillard, a Swiss missionary who profoundly influenced local development in South Kivu, including in the postcolonial era:

“#Paroisse Sainte Therèse of #Burhiba/#Bukavu1: Every time I pass in front of this church, I am filled with joy because it brings back many childhood and youth memories. I received the sacraments of baptism, communion, and confirmation in this church; I served at the altar in this church. I received the foundations of my religious and human education in this church. But also, thanks to this church and the ingenuity and high sense of development of #FatherClaudeMaillard (pictured here, to whom I pay a heartfelt tribute), I was saved, like many other children of my generation, from the burden of fetching water over long distances from our homes. It is thanks to Father Claude Maillard that we had access to potable water in our neighborhoods, supplied from the Mahyuza spring on Nyalunanga Hill. A few days ago, I was passing through Burhiba and took this photo of the parish and the Mahyuza water reservoir on Nyalunanga Hill, now densely populated. On the one hand, I was amazed to see that this infrastructure is still serving the community, but on the other, I was shocked to see that its maintenance was not reassuring enough to ensure that future generations could benefit from this heritage. Thank you, Baba Padri Curé Claude Maillard. Many years have passed since your departure from Burhiba and the DRC, yet thousands of children are still spared the burden of fetching water far from their homes. Ubarikiwe⁵!”

[33].

It is important to see that in this testimony, not only does the church reflect the territory of Burhiba (an outlying district of the city of Bukavu in eastern Congo), but it also constitutes a place that includes the life stories of several generations who recognize themselves not only in the church, but also in its works, which contribute to the territorialization of the area, in particular the water supply facilitated by a missionary who returned to Europe a long time ago, but whose memory is still vivid for the beneficiaries of his work.

This ecclesial “incursion” into domains traditionally reserved for the State stems from the territorial centrality of religious heritage in social life. It extends even into sectors typically managed by the private sector, such as banking support. For example, IFOD⁶ and the local Caritas, affiliated with the Congolese Catholic Church, are consistently mobilized by public authorities as intermediaries for teachers’ salaries. They facilitate the mobility of public funds in Catholic, public, and Protestant schools that are remote from urban centers, isolated from the formal banking sector, or difficult to access, except for religious networks that have established missions there. This postcolonial Church–State collaboration is legally grounded in the Congolese Constitution of February 18, 2006, which stipulates: “The State guarantees freedom of association. Public authorities collaborate with associations that contribute to the social, economic, intellectual, moral, and spiritual development of the population and to the education of citizens. This collaboration may take the form of a subsidy. The law establishes the modalities for exercising this freedom” through DRC Constitution, Article 36, as cited in an analysis by Gratien Mole [34]. As dioceses are legally considered associations, they participate in the materialization of public services and receive state subsidies to support the educational and healthcare services they provide.

Conversely, Protestant institutions, such as the Methodist Episcopal Congo Mission, the Garanganze Evangelical Mission, or the Africa Inland Mission (see Table 1), appear relegated to peripheral areas: small landholdings (generally less than 10 hectares), forested margins, remote spaces far from major urban centers, or secondary corridors. This “peripheral confinement” dating back to colonial times was not accidental; it reflected a colonial strategy whereby Protestants, though tolerated and sometimes even solicited to cover areas abandoned by Catholics, found themselves assigned to spaces with fewer colonial infrastructures [14]. This contributed to a differentiated geography of missions, where Catholic centrality was accompanied by Protestant marginality [27]. However, in the long postcolonial period, this geographic marginality transformed into a strategic, even reactionary, leverage point for new postcolonial authorities involved in structuring a new religious and territorial architecture under Mobutu with the rise of the ECC. The establishment of the ECC [35], with a national territorial strategy (global spatiality) and the 1978 Protestant centennial event in the DRC (long temporal scale), which led to the construction of the Protestant Centennial Cathedral in Kinshasa, was perceived as a significant symbolic milestone contributing to the (re)positioning of a new religious antagonist against a Catholic influence, historically associated with the colonial powers, despite its anti-colonial and anti-dictatorial stance.

Overall, the territories historically attributed to Protestants, generally located on the periphery, were difficult-to-access areas restricted by a centralized state or clerical structures favoring Catholic missions. While Catholic–Protestant rivalries once centered on territorial expansion facilitated in favor of Catholic missions, as well as on access to substantial subsidies in medical, educational, and human resources sectors [27], these disputes have been overtaken by new postcolonial dynamics. Protestant missions have turned this historical imbalance into an asset, fostering a culture of financial and institutional autonomy disconnected from European parent missions, European donations, and state subsidies, which gradually declined after decolonization. To weaken the Catholic Church’s power, Congolese leaders have frequently relied on Protestant churches as a political counterbalance in institutional dialogues between public authorities and religious missions.

Meanwhile, the heavily institutionalized Catholic missions, sometimes entrenched in patrimonial logics of alignment with statist, canonist, or European missionary aid⁷ expectations, face new challenges in territorial anchoring. These challenges are exacerbated by the multifaceted crisis of the European Church, which no longer significantly supports African churches, and by the crisis of the postcolonial State, which fails to provide substantial subsidies to religious missions. This is why the Catholic Church was the first to introduce the “Prime” system in the 1990s, requiring parents to finance schooling in response to the postcolonial State’s failure to sustain adequate funding for public and conventionally managed schools (Catholic and Protestant)⁸. This represents what Abbé Musanganya calls “the intellectual matrix of social Catholicism in the face of a weak State” [37], demonstrating the possibility of a strong Church within a weakened State. Nevertheless, critics of both Protestant and Catholic Churches continue to question how the State has morally and socially failed in its mission, despite its officials having been predominantly educated in Catholic or Protestant schools. Does the Congolese moral crisis fundamentally challenge the conventional educational model of the Catholic and Protestant networks, which together constitute more than half of the organized schools in the Congolese education system?

Beyond this, new religious actors are emerging in the territorial arena, notably with the rise of so-called “evangelical” or “neo-Pentecostal” movements. These new actors reflect a recomposition of religious spaces and their impact on the territorialization of religious practices. Taking advantage of widespread social precarity, these churches have intensified their preaching of a “prosperity theology.” This approach primarily enriches their pastors, some of whom are millionaires, while thousands of their followers live on less than one USD per day. Rather than initiating projects aimed at territorial development, these churches engage in a new form of “de-territorialization”, promoting a theological abstraction rooted in the fantasy of miracles and the abdication of public authorities’ responsibilities.

5. Conclusions

The analysis of the land assets of religious missions in Central Africa, with a particular focus on the Democratic Republic of Congo, sheds light on the historical and contemporary processes of (re)territorialization that have shaped the relationships between the state, religious actors, and local communities. By examining, as an illustrative case, the land concessions granted by decree of the Belgian colonial administration in 1933, this research has identified three key dynamics: land sanctuarization, the constitution of an ecclesiastical dominium, and the postcolonial challenges that stem from these processes.

The process of land sanctuarization played a central role in the long-term establishment of religious missions on spaces that were deemed “vacant,” despite being embedded within the customary territories of local communities. This crystallization of land rights, sometimes contested in terms of legitimacy, remains a structuring element in territorial governance and organization. By designating these lands as “sacred” and inviolable, land sanctuarization enabled religious institutions to assume an active role in the provision of social services, often in close collaboration with colonial and later postcolonial authorities.

At the same time, the constitution of an ecclesiastical dominium, a stable and officially recognized landholding, consolidated the power of missions, granting them not only land rights, but also a strategic function in territorial planning, resource management, and the provision of essential public services such as healthcare, education, and agricultural training. This dual movement gave rise to a genuine ecclesiastical governmentality, a mode of power in which the Church administers significant portions of the territory while shaping the behaviors, knowledge, and practices of local populations, either in tandem with or parallel to state mechanisms.

In postcolonial dynamics, this ecclesiastical governmentality continues to structure national space: Catholic missions, historically entrenched in key strategic areas, maintain a major organizational influence, while regions with a strong Protestant presence, once peripheral, are experiencing renewed forms of social and community engagement, particularly in local governance. However, this diversification has not profoundly reshaped the territorial dominance of the Catholic network, which still operates as a form of “parallel government”, particularly in remote areas where state authority remains weak and where ecclesiastical power ensures social cohesion, moral guidance, and access to essential services in fragile areas.

The implications of these dynamics for the reterritorialization of relations between the state, the Church, and local societies are manifold. Today, the management of religious missions’ land legacies is part of a complex process of spatial redefinition, in which former zones of religious influence become focal points for public policies while simultaneously allowing local actors to reaffirm their roles in development processes. In this context, reassessing religious and land assets is essential to understanding contemporary challenges in territorial governance and the ways in which these legacies can contribute to inclusive and sustainable development strategies. Thus, this study invites a reconsideration of the land assets of religious missions as key elements in the construction of contemporary territories, recognizing their multiple roles in territorial reconfiguration processes.