The lead off quote of this article, 2 Timothy...is one that both Catholics and Protestants should know wasn’t written by Paul. So says Francis’ fellow Jesuit and hundreds of other bible scholars.
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Disputed.htm
UPDATE 2 – 7/20/2014 @ 8:55AM: My thanks to one of my priestly readers, who kindly pointed out my error in attributing authorship of 2 Timothy to St. John instead of St. Paul. It was the result of some incautious Googling, and the fact that I’m an absolutely terrible exegete. Something in the back of my mind told me to go back and check that before posting, but I completely forgot. It’s nice to have readers who help you correct your silly mistakes instead of exploiting them. The post has been corrected to reflect the correct author.
The pseudepigraphical theory has problems of its own:
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=honors
It’s important to understand what generated the German School in the first place: The rejection of Biblical supernaturalism. According to this inherently skeptical view, Paul, John et al could not have known to oppose Gnosticism so presciently as they did, therefore their writing of it proves it was actually a lying later author capitalizing on their good names. But the spiritual reality is the Holy Spirit DID know what was coming and what already was happening in the First Century, and thus included essential teaching on the matter.
That’s why the German School is always going to be on the wrong side of these analyses. They don’t get the supernatural aspect at all. Which is why it is simply incorrect to say that scholarship universally rejects Pauline authorship of the pastorals. Any scholar who is an old school believer in the power of God and the inerrancy of His word can look at the same evidence and conclude that the traditional view of Paul’s authorship of the pastorals is actually the least strained of the available interpretations, and of those there appear to be quite a few remaining.