In Chapter 19 of his book Saint Paul the Apostle, Pope Benedict XVI (writing under that title) wrote the following sentences (pp. 110-111 of my edition):
Most exegetes today are of the opinion that these letters would not have been written by Paul himself, but would have come from the “Pauline School,” and that they reflect his legacy for a new generation, perhaps including some words or brief passages written by the Apostle himself. Some parts of the Second Letter to Timothy, for example, appear so authentic that they could only come from the heart and mouth of the Apostle.
Without a doubt, the situation of the Church as it emerges from these letters is very different from that of Paul’s middle years…
I have listened to many academic lectures on Paul’s writings, and all but a very small percentage of Christians espouse the position that St. Paul actually did write the pastorals (including, it appears, Dr. Scott Hahn of Franciscan University of Steubenville and the editors of the Ignatius Study Bible).
At least in its plain language, this scholarly consensus seems to contrast with what’s written in Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation:
“Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation”
Session IV of the Council of Trent said this:
"If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.
There seems to be a conflict here. How would you suggest navigating this predicament?