This answer was deeply unsatisfying to me then, and I am still disturbed by it, based on the plain language of the Beatitudes - and the emphasis later in Matthew 5:43-48 to "...Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you".

While I understand that the Catechism does allow for legitimate defense (2263-2267), and that defense can be interpreted as preventing a greater evil (esp. 2265-2266), I think there are a few vital issues that were not given the gravity they deserve in the part of your homily regarding "just wars".

The first issue is the ultimate responsibility for peaceful solutions over all else, not just with the Sermon on the Mount (2262), but embedded in the Church's teaching about legitimate defense

2267: Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

Second is the implorations of the Pope for a peaceful solution for this specific crisis - both in the request to pray the Rosary for peace on 7 Oct 01 (the same day Western bombing of Afghanistan began) and in statements made on 12 Sep 01: "I strongly reiterate that the ways of violence will never lead to genuine solutions to humanity's problems."

Both of the above stress that although violence may be necessary, it is never a final solution or panacea. The example you utilized of the Third Reich last week is ideal; though violence stopped the Third Reich, the ideals of the Nazi regime persisted after World War II, and have only begun to face real defeat through legal and social applications of the Golden Rule - to wit, through love, not hate.

But the most troubling aspect of all the above is in the whole concept of a "just war". To quote the Catechism:

2265-6: "Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility. The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good."

The question is, Father, with this definition what happens when both sides view the other as an unjust aggressors? This kind of rationale seems uncomfortably close to the very rationale that freedom fighters or terrorists - or nations - have used to justify any violence that is politically expedient through the ages.

At any rate, I felt called to share these thoughts with you. Good day, and I wish you well.