Bishop Joseph Gerry and Gov. Angus King twice have attempted to soothe nerves made raw by rhetoric in the aftermath of the killing of two abortion clinic workers in Brookline, Mass.

The first were separate calls for a moratorium on demonstrations at Maine abortion clinics. The state needed to hear these rational appeals from its governor and the religious leader most closely connected with the controversy.

The moratorium is a good idea that continues to make sense. In an atmosphere of tension, it eliminates flashpoints for violence.

The second step, taken jointly this week, is the announced creation of an eight-member working committee with the dual charge of studying issues that arise from demonstrations and violence at abortion clinics and identifying common ground for the pro-life and pro-choice camps.

There will be four pro-life representatives, chosen by Bishop Gerry, and four from the pro-choice side selected by Karen Heck of the Maine Choice Coalition. The eight will choose a neutral moderator.

The committee mechanism — especially one built and empowered by the state’s governor and its Roman Catholic bishop — has the potential to become a positive force, but it would be unrealistic to expect it to produce miracles.

There are many variables that will affect the outcome of its work, not the least of which is the judgment of Heck and Gerry in choosing appointees. The expectations and tolerance each member brings to the table, the creativity and diplomacy of the chairman and the level of social pressure from the outside all will shape the dialogue or influence the atmosphere in the committee room.

As a working group, the committee can examine societal issues resulting from the Brookline shootings, and the subsequent conflict in Maine, most of it rhetoric and rocks, that broke the peace at picket lines as uncontrolled emotion rumbled through the state.

The committee members individually can build a foundation of trust and respect on which their successors can carry on the discussion. They can create a place for responsible debate, a forum where the rough edge is worn off arguments and anger. Given enough time, good will and openmindedness, they may succeed in the more difficult charge of finding common ground where pro-life and pro-choice advocates can comfortably stand.

It would be wishful to think that the violent episode in Massachusetts will be the last in the abortion controversy.

This committee can make it clear that the overwhelming majority of Maine people, regardless of their personal beliefs on abortion, agree that violence is an unacceptable tool to achieve political and public policy objectives. If it can do that, it will have done its most important work.