It is common for Roman Catholic apologists to cite Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20 as proof that it contains a prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. The NRSV renders the text as follows:
"Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God's child, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected."
Firstly, it should be noted that Catholic apologists are engaging in special pleading by appealing to an alleged prophecy in the Wisdom of Solomon; if they were consistent, they would have to argue for the canonicity of texts Trent did not canonise, such as 1 Enoch which Jude explicitly stated contained a prophecy(!):
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints. To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 14-15)
According to Jude, Enoch “prophesied,” using the usual verb for predictive prophecy προφητεύω. Furthermore, this comes from 1 Enoch 1:9. Even allowing this text to be a Messianic prophecy, it does not mean, from the Roman Catholic’s own perspective, that the entire book is to be considered canonical. For a Latter-day Saint, allowing that Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20 is a true prophecy, is not problematic to our view; as D&C 91 states about the Apocrypha (emphasis added):
Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha-- There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly; There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men. Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated. Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.
For more, see James F. McGrath's article Wisdom of Solomon 2: An Apocryphal Prophecy About Jesus?
Secondly, it is generally accepted by scholars of the Wisdom of Solomon that this work is not Solomonic with respect to its authorship, but a text that is from the first/century BC. For a fuller discussion, see David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible, vol. 43).
Thirdly, the Wisdom of Solomon’s prophecy can be understood as having strong dependency on the fourth servant Hymn in Isa 52:13-53:12 as well as Psa 22. Such was common in the Messianic literature of the time the Wisdom of Solomon was authored, such as the depiction of Melchizedek as a Messianic figure in the Melchizedek Scroll (11Q13) from Qumran and one need not impute to the Wisdom of Solomon divine inspiration.
Finally, it should be noted that even Catholic apologists themselves admit that there were many important theologians who rejected the inspiration of the Deutero-canonical books. As one Catholic apologist noted, those who rejected the Deutero-canonical works included:
John Damascene (676-754 to 787) who, in his An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, had assigned 22 books to the Hebrew Old Testament as he found them in the work of Epiphanius (314-403) De pondeibus et mensuris, a work completed before the Councils which formulated the Christian canon (Catholic Encyclopedia, eds., Charles G. Herbermann, et al. (New York: Robert Appleton Co. 1910), Vol. VIII, p. 461); and Hugh of St. Victor (b. 1096) in De Sacramentis Christianoe Fidei (c. 1134) which questions the canonicity of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus; and Nicholas of Lyra (d. 1270-1340) who deferred to the Hebrew canon in his commentaries. Thomas Aquinas was perplexed as to the exact standing of the Deutero-canonicals, as was Cardinal Cajetan during the Protestant Reformation. Other medieval theologians did not accept their canonicity without at least some doubts. (Robert A. Sungenis, “Point/Counterpoint: Protestant Objections and Catholic Answers," in Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis [2d ed.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, 2013], 193-294, here, pp. 231-32, n. 61)
The simplistic appeal to Wisdom of Solomon ch. 2 as “proof” for the Catholic canon being accurate is rather simplistic.