It was the fifth Sunday in ordinary time, but it was anything but an ordinary mass.

Imagine my surprise when, instead of the usual homily, a powerpoint presentation flashed against the church’s walls, and in big bold letters, was this: “Choosing Life, Rejecting the RH Bill.” Oh, it was going to be a homily, alright.

I am not against the idea of the Church diffusing their stand against the RH Bill among its people, and though I thought it was an unsettling and radical approach, the sense of urgency was effectively communicated. What I am against is that the Pastoral Letter did not acknowledge the validity of the RH Bill as an option for family planning and responsible parenthood, because while it has loopholes, credit must be given where it is due.

We have to acknowledge that overpopulation does have a correlation to poverty, that sex, though best in the context of marriage, is happening and is prevalent even without media sensationalism. There will be unwanted babies and some will never see the light of day, and people will keep contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases—this is reality. True, condoms aren’t infallible, but it doesn’t mean that quoting scientists and Nobel laureates also equate to absolute truth. Objectively, that must also ring true for the RH Bill, and this is why we must be more conscientious when it comes to claims—because it swings both ways.

I do not claim to know everything, but what I know is this: I believe in a higher power that will not condemn me for standing for something, for promoting dialogue when faced with a moral detour, and for mustering enough courage to speak; the existence or lack thereof of my sexual involvement isn’t the pinnacle, or the crucial standard which determines whether I am good or not.

Call it my postmodern spirit then, but I believe in the RH Bill because, despite my Catholic upbringing, I refuse to ignore the country’s social realities. This isn’t just an issue of overpopulation, or of sex and condoms, and HIV. The RH Bill must be understood in the context of our country, and the pressing issues we are confronted with. Fourteen years in the making, we can’t circumvent this issue anymore, or shelve it then prioritize it again when we’re knee-deep into the problem. Let this be one of those times where we start thinking ahead.

The RH Bill gives us options that we may consent to or not, upon proper education and discernment. I am aware that the phrase “freedom of choice” can be recklessly flailed around to justify everything, but I am also aware that each choice bears both merit and repercussion, and I own up to both.

The Pastoral Letter said that the bill, in all its versions calls us to make a moral choice: life or death. This statement, stripped off of its threat and black and white directive, is essentially calling us to make a choice. Therefore, I will—for me, and in behalf the others who echo the same sentiments as mine: I choose to support the RH Bill