The blog Against the Grain has an interesting post on the subject of the Catholic approach to war, looking at various points of view as to whether that approach has been changing over time, particularly in light of the Iraq war. Looking at some of the points of view referenced there, I could see a few ways in which I think the statements of various Catholic hierarchy have not been particularly well interpreted. There is a common thread in a few of these worth noticing.

Firstly, there is a mention of Weigel's attack on Cardinal Martino's statement, made in an interview in March 2003, where Martino said, in response to the question: "Are you suggesting there is no such thing as a just war anymore?":

I think with modern weaponry, there is no proportionality between the offense and the reply. It makes much more damage. War is so destructive now. It is not just a fight between one person and another."

Weigel's response was extremely pointed:

Which is to say that many people, reading that interview with Archbishop Martino, drew the conclusion, not unreasonably, that the Catholic Church no longer believed a just war possible.

That is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. It is the personal opinion of Archbishop Martino. And, in all charity, it seems an opinion uninfluenced by pertinent facts.

Now, Weigel's response goes way overboard because he did not pay attention to the stated context of Martino's remarks: modern weaponry. The context is not (as it seems Weigel would have it) any possible war or weapon in modern times, but those wars fought with modern weaponry. Which modern weaponry was being referred to? Clearly, nuclear weapons spring immediately to mind, followed also by large-scale use of chemical or biological weapons. These weapons are largely indiscriminate in their effects, and thus have been condemned by the Vatican II Council as "a crime against God and humanity". So, any war which involves such usage of modern weapons may not possibly be just.

If there was doubt that Weigel's remark goes too far, consider that one month later, the then Cardinal Ratzinger, said in an interview:

… given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."

which seems much the same as Martino's point. If Weigel were attacking both Martino and Ratzinger, it would not be so clear whose side Weigel could possibly be on.

Secondly, the post makes reference to a posting by Jimmy Akin, Crime and Punishment. I cannot quite agree that this article is excellent, if only because its interpretations occasionally go beyond what the originals say. For example, Akin says:

The reason there can be a diversity of opinion on the decision to go to war is that the application of the Church’s just-war criteria is left to the prudential judgment of those responsible for the decision: the leaders of the state rather than the Church.

But what the Catechism exactly says is:

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy [[of a proposed just war]] belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

We must not translate "those who have responsibility for the common good" too thoughtlessly into "the leaders of the state". The Catechism says the first, not the second. Who is responsible for the common good? Besides the leaders of the state, one could also think of all the legislators of the state, all judicial appointments, all military personnel, all the national media, and so on. (Why, even bloggers!) And in fact, "those responsible for the common good" cannot leave out Catholic Bishops, or other religious organizations! Akin leaves the impression that once the leaders of the state have made some kind of decision, then to disobey them would an illegitimate usurpation of their authority. That cannot possibly be a general rule.

Thirdly, Ratzinger has stated:

There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Though there can be a legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics, it does not follow logically that all the opinions of Catholics are legitimate. I sensed in some of the references provided in the posting that some would want their decisions to be conveniently free from interference. Since not all the opinions of Catholics are legitimate, the Pope or Church can use its power to condemn some.

Fourthly, I think the posting reads too much into Ratzinger's September 2002 statement that "political questions are not within his competence". Looking at the context, Ratzinger was giving his political opinion that the United Nations was the best organization to be making decisions. He was surely not making any broader statement that his opinion on everything to do with the war was only his political opinion.

Overall — to address the two questions posed at the end of the posting— I think that the Catholic doctrine of just war is not particularly challenged by anything specific that arises out of 9/11, and that the answer to the question "Are papal pronouncements on the war to be considered 'prudential judgments,' about which Catholics can disagree and remain in good standing" is the simple one: Listen to what the Church says and it will be clear (as opposed to what other people may say the Church says).