While I have no interest in reviving last Spring's debates, I feel obliged to point out that "prudential judgment", while frequently interpreted as a license by those in search of one, is better understood as a solemn duty.
I have little love for the UN, and am willing to admit my wariness of the Holy See's frequently excessive readiness to endorse its legitimate interest in this or that affair. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that the Vatican was right to call for an authentically communal response to Saddam's lawlessness. Entirely apart from pragmatic considerations (which obtain nevertheless) the Vatican was quite right in opposing any appeal to a principal of unilateral right to wage war in the absence of a plausible and present threat.
The Holy See's preference that the matter be referred to the UN should not be seen as an endorsement of world government (ths Catechism's teaching on subsidiarity being quite clear in that respect) but as a useful check on popular passions and political the mischief-makers who manipulate them.
No it should not, but there were some statements made by holders of shockingly high Vatican positions which came very close to crossing that line.
I'm referring specifically to the statements suggesting that in the modern world war could never be justified without U. N. approval. The only way to square that with Just War theory is to assume the nation state is no longer a sovereign authority. Dangerous stuff, especially since it was sort of dumped out there without explanation or attempt to explain it in light of the soverign authority concept within Just War principal.