First, when I read this sentence it reminded me of a joke from Office Space: “Well, I wouldn’t say I’ve been missing them, Bob.”
Secondly, seriously, I think the last 100 years of Catholic biblical scholarship have a lot to offer, but I don’t think all of it denies Pauline authorship, and I don’t think any of it had the authority to overturn the Magisterial document Pascendi Domini Gregis. As far as I know, the statements in that document have not been retracted, and therefore it seems to follow that no Catholic author is permitted to openly contradict its teaching. And I think that’s what those do who deny Pauline authorship.
But even what you cite does not definitively establish the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.
I think the first sentence I quoted rejects the idea that any books of the Bible weren’t authored by “the authors whose names they bear,” because it says that that rejection of traditional authorship is a “result of this dismembering of the Sacred Books” which the document says is incompatible with Catholic theology. Do you see it differently?
Many respected and orthodox Catholic scholars have opined that Timothy and Titus were not written by Paul. Fr. Brown comes most readily to mind, but there are many others. In fact, the introduction to Timothy by both the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Vatican acknowledges that “most” scholars do not believe Paul wrote Timothy. [usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=1 Timothy&ch=](“http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=1 Timothy&ch=”)
The USCCB introduction also appears to affirm Pauline authorship: “The three letters, First and Second Timothy and Titus, form a distinct group within the Pauline corpus. In the collection of letters by the Apostle to the Gentiles, they differ from the others in form and contents. All three suggest they were written late in Paul’s career.”
Later, they mention that a majority group of scholars don’t accept Pauline authorship, and that, if their views are accepted, “[the letters’] date may be as late as the early second century.” I don’t see this as an endorsement of that position because, by my reading, the USCCB introduction contradicts that view in its first few sentences, and also because it mentions two other groups who accept Pauline authorship, and, before it mentions the late-date theory, it says, “If Paul is considered the more immediate author, the Pastorals are to be dated between the end of his first Roman imprisonment (Acts 28:16) and his execution under Nero (A.D. 63–67).”
That does not require all Catholics to agree, but surely the bishops and the Vatican are not promoting a belief that is banned by Catholic doctrine?
I’ve explained why I don’t think they are promoting that view, I’d love your thoughts about this argument: unless Pascendi Domini Gregis is revoked by the Vatican, it retains its magisterial character, and requires religious assent of the mind and will by Catholics and a resolve not to openly contradict it. It seems to follow that anyone who openly denies that the Books of Scripture were written by “the authors whose names they bear,” contradicts not just the Magisterium in 1907, but the current Magisterium, because Pascendi Domini Gregis is still a Magisterial document. What do you think of that argument?