There is a tendency for some to raise the heat whenever a controversy is afoot. Their language becomes emotive. Others, on the contrary, prefer to keep their cool. They prefer to create more light than heat. A reasoned out argument is their tack.

Cardinal Mario Pompedda, retired head of the Apostolic Signature, the Vatican's supreme court, is one of these. He ventured into two controversies without falling into the temptation of being emotive and populist.

In different interviews Cardinal Pompedda said that voting for a pro-abortion candidate is not necessarily a sin; that abortion should not be called murder; and that he would not oppose the legal recognition of "domestic partners". Let's look at these three statements.

The leading expert on Church law said Catholics are not necessarily sinning if they vote for a candidate who supports legal abortion. Cardinal Pompedda said Catholics might find sufficient reasons to consider such a candidate a "lesser evil" in a field of imperfect choices.

The cardinal made the remarks in an interview published on October 6 by the Rome newspaper La Repubblica, following a discussion at the Synod of Bishops on the question of Communion, politics and human life issues. A Christian Outlook referred to this discussion last Sunday.

Cardinal Pompedda said that while the Church punishes the act of procuring abortion with automatic excommunication, voting for a candidate who supports legal abortion is an indirect act that should be viewed differently.

"I would be cautious in applying the word 'sin', which implies intentionality. It would be more accurate to speak of risk or imprudence," he said.

The Cardinal is not saying that voting for a pro-abortion candidate is not something to be taken seriously. He is saying that such an act implies responsibility but that this does not necessarily involve sin.

Cardinal Pompedda referred to the moral principle about the lesser evil. A Catholic can be in a position that all candidates are unsatisfactory from the point of view of morality but that the pro-abortion candidate is the least one who offends. He is voting for such a candidate not because he agrees with the pro-abortion stand but for other aspects of his political programme that the voter supports.

Catholics who do vote for such a politician might carry out their own pro-life responsibilities in other ways, for example, by working against abortion through political or cultural initiatives, he said.

Regarding these points, we refer our readers to two points made in 2004 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in a letter to the US bishops. Cardinal Ratzinger had said that a Catholic who deliberately voted for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's pro-abortion (or pro-euthanasia) stand would be guilty of "formal co-operation in evil".

But he also said that when a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered "remote material co-operation", which is permitted when there are proportionate reasons.

The position taken by Cardinal Pompedda becomes more important because of the controversy raging in Italy about the decision of a northern Italian region to distribute the abortive pill RU-486. The Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, condemned the move and said use of the pill was "really and truly murder".

Cardinal Pompedda said the Church was right to condemn all forms of abortion, but he said he would not call abortion "murder," because of respect for language. "Murder refers to man, while here the reference is to the embryo. Law and morality have always distinguished between murder, infanticide and abortion. Should we suddenly erase this distinction?" he asked.

Cardinal Pompedda said he thought the Church could fully defend the human embryo's right to life without artificially dramatising the differences with those who think differently.

"I've also heard the killing of embryos compared with the Shoah. But I would invite people to use more moderate language. Isn't it enough to say 'abortion'?" he asked.

The other controversy Cardinal Pompedda ventured into is about the proposed recognition of domestic partners in Italy. The proposal is being put forward by the political coalition led by Romano Prodi. Although L'Osservatore Romano came out firmly in opposition to this proposal, Cardinal Pompedda told the Italian daily Il Giornale that he thought the idea deserved consideration and that he would not oppose the legal recognition of "domestic partners" in Italy.

Cardinal Pompedda remarked that the proposal offered a means of granting legal status to common-law unions. However, the retired cardinal stressed, it would be crucially important to distinguish between domestic partnerships and legal marriage.

"We cannot have any equivocation or confusion" on that point, he said, adding that this clarity should extend into the future, so that there is no risk that the recognition of domestic partnerships or civil unions will become a step on the road to recognition of same-sex marriage.

Cardinal Pompedda explained that he is open to the proposal because when common-law unions produce children, the parents have legal responsibilities toward those children. And where there are legal duties, he continued, there are also legal rights which should be recognised. Moreover, the cardinal said, "a common-law union that lasts over a period of years gives rise to a relationship which cannot fail to involve rights". The government, he said, should not ignore these realities.

There are others inside the Church who would not agree with Cardinal Pompedda. This stresses the fact that there is amply place for legitimate pluralism inside the Church. It is a pity when one side of a controversy tries to demonise the other. Fortunately, Cadinal Pompedda, because of his standing and stature, cannot be elbowed with the accusation that he is some disloyal upstart.

Quite naturally he is not. The same can be said about many who disagree with positions taken by L'Osservatore Romano or some member of the hierarchy. The pursuit of truth should be done in charity and enlightenment.