Stanley, your problem is that you're not reading that entire section through the lens of Trent.  Trent clearly taught what is required in preparation for baptism, and in preparation for justification - all of these requirements also apply in order to receive BOD.
.
You're reading Piux XI through the lens of modernism.  This is where you fall into Pelagianism.  Of all the various mentions of BOD (saints, popes, councils), Trent is the highest authority which mentions it.  So if you ignore Trent's explanation of who BOD applies to, you're going to be led into error by the many modernist/heretical ideals which have tried to (and have been mostly successful in) watering down Trent.

Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior"

I hope that for those of you who are promoting Fr Fenney's beliefs that you accept the fact that if your position is correct then the ordinary teaching power of the magisterium is liable to error, and, therefore, the Church can teach Catholics lies. What would be the point of a catechism if it could contain error [according to the Feeneyites]? Are you actually willing to say that the Church has approved an instruction manual for the faithful that can lead them into heresy? Are you seriously going to say that for hundreds of years all the catechisms produced for Christians will lead their souls to hell?

His Holiness Clement XIII stated that it's impossible for the Roman Catechism to contain error. Therefore, if you're willing to say the catechisms have taught error, because they teach BoD, then you contradict these infallible words of HH. Submit to Church teaching: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/clem13/c13indom.htm

About a half dozen false assumptions, and Father Feeney's name misspelled.  This is one of the reasons that the radical sedevacantists are the most dogmatic on BoD, because they exaggerate the scope of infallibility to insane levels.  There were some Catechisms right before Vatican I that rejected papal infallibility; these had to be corrected afterwards.  Of course, you falsely assume also that the Roman Catechism teaches BoD, when it does not.

You assert that catechisms are not infallible, and yet also admit that the Church corrected them. That proves all the more that they are protected from error,

Also, it most certainly does teach baptism of desire. Council of Trent Session 6 Chp. 4 which reads: "A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace. By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

Saint Pius V always quoted Trent in favor of BoD. Also, canon law teaches BoD: Canon 1239.2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law declares, “catechumens who through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized.”

Sorry but this is probably the dumbest thing I've read all week. Are you SERIOUSLY using the fact that errors were corrected as proof that catechisms are infallible(i.e without error? The fact that they were corrected necessarily means there were previous catechisms which contained error, therefore proving that catechisms MUST be fallible.

So you accept explicit BoD? If that is the case then accept implicit BoD. Implicit BoD still conforms perfectly with EENS, because if one who is ignorant of the faith, and has no possible means to arrive at the faith [except through revelation], he can implicitly desire the faith.

“. . . we have to admit . . . that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus,’ and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory nαzιanzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.” (Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church, translated by Karl H. Kruger, pp.40, 41, 57)