Jorge Bergoglio would condemn you for this.  Bergoglio's definition of "evangelization" positively precludes attempting to convert, which he calls "prosletyzing".

The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that "this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God."

    But there are other truths in the Catholic religion which are not formally revealed by God but which nevertheless are so connected with revealed truth that their denial would lead to the rejection of God's word, and concerning these the Church, the guardian as well as the teacher of the revealed word, exercises an infallible teaching authority. "Dogmatic facts,"² theological conclusions, doctrines - whether of faith or morals - involved in the legislation of the Church, in the condemnation of books or persons, in the canonisation of saints, in the approbation of religious orders - all these are matters coming within the infallible competence of the Church, all these are things which every Catholic is bound to believe when the Church pronounces upon them in the exercise of her supreme and infallible teaching office. He accepts them not by divine-Catholic faith, for God has not revealed them, but by ecclesiastical faith, by an assent which is based upon the infallible authority of the divinely appointed Church. Theologians, however, point out that even ecclesiastical faith is at least mediately divine, since it is God who has revealed that His Church is to be believed: "He that heareth you heareth me."

Already it is apparent that the question: "Must I believe it?" is equivocal. It may mean: "Is this a dogma of faith which I must believe under pain of heresy?" or it may mean: "Is it a doctrine which I must believe by ecclesiastical faith, under pain of being branded as temerarious or proximate to heresy?" But in either case the answer is: "You must believe it." The only difference lies between the precise motive of assent in either case, or the precise censure which may attach to disbelief. The question thus resolves itself into an investigation whether the doctrine under discussion belongs to either of these categories. And here again there is the possibility of undue restriction.

  The Vatican Council has defined that "all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by her ordinary and universal teaching, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."³ What is liable to be overlooked is the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church. It is by no means uncommon to find the option, if not expressed at least entertained, that no doctrine is to be regarded as a dogma of faith unless it has been solemnly defined by an oecuмenical Council or by the Sovereign Pontiff himself. This is by no means necessary. It is sufficient that the Church teaches it by her ordinary magisterium, exercised through the Pastors of the faithful, the Bishops whose unanimous teaching throughout the Catholic world, whether conveyed expressly through pastoral letters, catechisms issued by episcopal authority, provincial synods, or implicitly through prayers and religious practices allowed or encouraged, or through the teaching of approved theologians, is no less infallible than a solemn definition issued by a Pope or a general Council. If, then, a doctrine appears in these organs of divine Tradition as belonging directly or indirectly to the depositum fidei committed by Christ to His Church, it is to be believed by Catholics with divine-Catholic or ecclesiastical faith, even though it may never have formed the subject of a solemn definition in an oecuмenical Council or of an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Sovereign Pontiff.⁴

The answer is implicit in the principles already established. We have seen that the source of the obligation to believe is not the infallibility of the Church but her divine commission to teach. Therefore, whether her teaching is guaranteed by infallibility or not, the Church is always the divinely appointed teacher and guardian of revealed truth, and consequently the supreme authority of the Church, even when it does not intervene to make an infallible and definitive decision on matters of faith or morals, has the right, in virtue of the divine commission, to command the obedient assent of the faithful. In the absence of infallibility the assent thus demanded cannot be that of faith, whether Catholic or ecclesiastical; it will be an assent of a lower order proportioned to its ground or motive. But whatever name be given to it - for the present we may call it belief - it is obligatory; obligatory not because the teaching is infallible - it is not - but because it is the teaching of the divinely appointed Church.

Nor is this obligation of submission to the non-infallible utterances of authority satisfied by the so-called silentium obsequiosum. The security of Catholic doctrine, which is the purpose of these decisions, would not be safeguarded if the faithful were free to withhold their assent. It is not enough that they should listen in respectful silence, refraining from open opposition. They are bound in conscience to submit to them,⁹ and conscientious submission to a doctrinal decree does not mean only to abstain from publicly rejecting it; it means the submission of one's own judgment to the more competent judgment of authority.

But, satisfied that the doctrine has been authoritatively and infallibly proposed for belief by the Church, our questioner still waits to be informed whether it is a doctrine which has been formally revealed by God and is therefore to be believed under pain of heresy, or whether it is one of those matters which belong only indirectly to the depositum fidei and therefore to be believed by ecclesiastical faith. In the majority of cases this is not difficult to decide: dogmatic facts, canonizations, legislation - these evidently are not revealed by God and belong to the secondary object of the infallible magisterium. But the line of demarcation between dogmas and theological conclusions is not always so clear. There are some doctrines concerning which it may be doubted whether they are formally revealed by God or whether they are merely conclusions which are deduced from revealed truth, and it is part of the theologian's congenial task to endeavour to determine this. The doctrine of the Assumption is a case in point. But so far as Catholics generally are concerned it is not a matter of great importance, for if the Church - as we are supposing - teaches such doctrines in the exercise of her infallible office the faithful are bound sub gravi to believe them; in practice it is a question of determining whether he who denies them is very near to heresy or whether he has actually fallen into it. In either case he has committed a grave sin against faith.


    To sum up, Catholics are bound to believe what the Church teaches. To refuse the assent of divine-Catholic faith to a dogma is to be a heretic; to refuse the assent of ecclesiastical faith to a doctrine which the Church teaches as belonging indirectly to the deposit of faith is to be more or less near to heresy; to refuse internal religious assent to the non-infallible doctrinal decisions of the Holy See is to fail in that submission which Catholics are strictly bound to render to the teaching authority of the Church.

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest and an ordinary member of the Church.

Explaining baptism of desire (BOD) is opening a can of worms. It is a theory never defined exactly and not a dogma, in fact it conflicts with all the dogmas on EENS and baptism, unless you do not read the dogmas as they are written, actually ignore them all (hence my satirical posting before).  Baptism of desire can mean anything to one who says they believe in BOD, here in CathInfo we call the believers in baptism of desire BODers, and their belief ranges from:
 
 1) The purest form - a catechumen who is on his way to be baptized, but gets run over by a car. They say he can be saved by his desire to be baptized, and he goes to an undecided place, no unanimous decision if they go direct to heaven like if they were baptized in water and got run over one second later, or if they go to Purgatory, and some people even say they go to limbo of the infants. (In my 25 years of experience on the subject, of all BODers today, less than 1%, if that, limit their BOD to this purest form)
 
 2) Then you have the person that desires to be a Catholic, and believes in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation (Jesus Christ is God and Man), but does not know about baptism, and gets run over by a car. The theory is that he will be saved by his implicit desire to be baptized. His desire for baptism is implicit in his desire to be a Catholic and his two beliefs. This theory is really no different than the #1. WARNING: This term "implicit" is twisted by practically all BODers to mean any desire whatsoever, and no belief in the Trinity and Incarnation (see #3 )
 
 3) Then you have baptism of desire stretched to its maximum, which is that with not even any desire, no desire whatsoever to be a Catholic or baptized, nor any belief in the Trinity or Incarnation, a person is saved by implicit faith (they will call it implicit baptism of desire which it is not). It is a Hindu who is a good person will be saved by his belief in a God that rewards. By believing in a God that rewards he implicitly believes in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation and wants to be a Catholic. That is what 99% of BODers believe when they are pressed to talk straight, which takes a lot of effort, for they are embarrassed of what they believe. BODers do not know how to explain it like that, they can't accept that a "nice" person will go to hell, so they seek teachers according to their own desires and that is how their teachers explain it.

…My only hope is to head straight towards the lighthouse that shines the only safe beacon of truth: dogma.

To try to save my soul in this storm, I am trying to keep it simple: if its dogma, I obey. Period.

. . . 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.