How does one know whether persons who die without baptism are not at fault?  Simply because they died before they got baptism?  Who judges such a thing?  What if they took their time and didn't get Baptism when they could have?  Or seriously questioned their faith?  Denied their faith?  Didn't regret a mortal sin?  Cursed God last minute?  This canon may be in a book that's supposed to be Catholic, but it really doesn't make sense that people must consider someone as Baptized when they are not.

I would like to suggest that you consult a priest with these concerns.

The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God. 

You said "This canon may be in a book that's supposed to be Catholic...", to which I would encourage your to explore the following link.  http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Canon_Law/index.html

Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer's article entitled "The Three Baptisms".
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_baptisms.htm

Stop spamming.  I've read this article and it's theological garbage.

You're going with JAM's false reading of the Canon Law.  This does not say that catechumens are considered baptized, but merely that they are to be treated as such in the context of whether or not they're allowed to have a Catholic funeral.  This is merely a disciplinary measure and amounts to nothing more than saying "Baptized and catechumens may receive a Catholic burial."

Actually, I was complaining about it.  Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

Actually, I was complaining about it.  Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

I provided Church approved commentary on the canon cited.
The simple matter of fact is that baptism of desire is taught by the Church.  Your opinion to the contrary is your own.

I am not "spamming", nor am I subject to you command.  What you've read and your opinions don't concern me.
If you have a complaint about my participation on CathInfo.com , I suggest you talk to the owner.

You absolutely are spamming.  You're pasting in generic pro-BoD articles and links instead of sticking to the subject under discussion.  You're not subject to my command, obviously, but you should show some respect and adhere to generally accepted forum etiquette.

Or, suppose, canon law "in the context of mass" required a minimum of four exotic dancers.  "Merely disciplinary?"  No problem?
.
What I'm getting at is that at some point, you have to draw the line, and a law, even if it is a disciplinary one, cannot be considered to have come from the Church.  I think people sometimes think that because canon law can be changed, that it isn't infallible.  It's true that it can be changed, but it's still infallible (which is not the same thing as immutable).  Over time, extrinsic causes might arise that make a law less applicable or advisable than when it was originally made (think of how Ne Temere abolished Trent's laws on marriage owing to major changes in the European social atmosphere).  That doesn't mean that a law, though it can be changed, can be changed to something that allows that which is intrinsically evil.
.
I think we'd all agree that it would be intrinsically evil to allow Muslims to receive Holy Communion, or to require strippers at mass.  We'd look at those laws and say "that couldn't possibly have come from the Church."  We wouldn't be able to "appeal to context" because the law is actually evil no matter the context.  But how to explain that a catechumen being given Catholic burial is not intrinsically evil?  It's not a problem if we incorporate BoD into the circuмspection.  If on the other hand, we maintain that those who were not baptized after the Resurrection are unexceptionally and in principle damned, how is this a legitimate law? 
.

I'm searching for a source for St. Gregory of Nyssa



http://catholicism.org/catholic-dogma-mueller.html

Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church

“…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.”

St. Gregory nαzιanzen

Oration 40

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310240.htm

XXII. But then, you say, is not God merciful, and since He knows our thoughts and searches out our desires, will He not take the desire of Baptism instead of Baptism? You are speaking in riddles, if what you mean is that because of God's mercy the unenlightened is enlightened in His sight; and he is within the kingdom of heaven who merely desires to attain to it, but refrains from doing that which pertains to the kingdom. I will, however, speak out boldly my opinion on these matters; and I think that all other sensible men will range themselves on my side. Of those who have received the gift, some were altogether alien from God and from salvation, both addicted to all manner of sin, and desirous to be bad; others were semivicious, and in a kind of mean state between good and bad; others again, while they did that which was evil, yet did not approve their own action, just as men in a fever are not pleased with their own sickness. And others even before they were illuminated were worthy of praise; partly by nature, and partly by the care with which they prepared themselves for Baptism. These after their initiation became evidently better, and less liable to fall; in the one case with a view to procuring good, and in the other in order to preserve it. And among these, those who gave in to some evil are better than those who were altogether bad; and better still than those who yielded a little, are those who were more zealous, and broke up their fallow ground before Baptism; they have the advantage over the others of having already laboured; for the font does not do away with good deeds as it does with sins. But better even than these are they who are also cultivating the Gift, and are polishing themselves to the utmost possible beauty.

XXIII. And so also in those who fail to receive the Gift, some are altogether animal or bestial, according as they are either foolish or wicked; and this, I think, has to be added to their other sins, that they have no reverence at all for this Gift, but look upon it as a mere gift — to be acquiesced in if given them, and if not given them, then to be neglected. Others know and honour the Gift, but put it off; some through laziness, some through greediness. Others are not in a position to receive it, perhaps on account of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circuмstance through which they are prevented from receiving it, even if they wish. As then in the former case we found much difference, so too in this. They who altogether despise it are worse than they who neglect it through greed or carelessness. These are worse than they who have lost the Gift through ignorance or tyranny, for tyranny is nothing but an involuntary error. And I think that the first will have to suffer punishment, as for all their sins, so for their contempt of baptism; and that the second will also have to suffer, but less, because it was not so much through wickedness as through folly that they wrought their failure; and that the third will be neither glorified nor punished by the righteous Judge, as unsealed and yet not wicked, but persons who have suffered rather than done wrong. For not every one who is not bad enough to be punished is good enough to be honoured; just as not every one who is not good enough to be honoured is bad enough to be punished. And I look upon it as well from another point of view. If you judge the murderously disposed man by his will alone, apart from the act of murder, then you may reckon as baptized him who desired baptism apart from the reception of baptism. But if you cannot do the one how can you do the other? I cannot see it. Or, if you like, we will put it thus:— If desire in your opinion has equal power with actual baptism, then judge in the same way in regard to glory, and you may be content with longing for it, as if that were itself glory. And what harm is done you by your not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have the desire for it?

Fathers of the Church, Volume 35 of 127

Writings of St. Augustine, Volume 16

Against Julian

p. 258

https://archive.org/details/fathersofthechur013910mbp

Of the number of the elect and predestined, even those who have led the very worst kind of life are led to repentance through the goodness of God, through whose patience they were not taken from this life in the commission of crimes; in order to show them and their co-heirs the depth of evil from which the grace of God delivers man. Not one of them perishes, regardless of his age at death; never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator. Because of these men, our Lord says: This is the will of him who sent me, the Father, that I should lose nothing of what he has given me.' The other mortals, not of this number, who are of the same mass as these, but have been made vessels of wrath, are born for their advantage. God creates none of them rashly or fortuitously, and He also knows what good may be made from them, since He works good in the very gift of human nature in them, and through them He adorns the order of the present world. He leads none of them to the wholesome and spiritual repentance by which a man in Christ is reconciled to God, whether His patience in their regard be more generous or not unequal. Therefore, though all men, of the same mass of perdition and condemnation, unrepentant according to the hardness of their heart, treasure up wrath to themselves on the day of wrath when each will be repaid according to his works, God through His merciful goodness leads some of them to repentance, and according to his judgment does not lead others.

St. Augustine

On the Soul and its Origin (Book III)

Chapter 13

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15083.htm

If you wish to be a catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that "they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined." There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief. Now these are your words: "We say that some such method as this must be had recourse to in the case of infants who, being predestinated for baptism, are yet, by the failing of this life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ." Is it then really true that any who have been predestinated to baptism are forestalled before they come to it by the failing of this life? And could God predestinate anything which He either in His foreknowledge saw would not come to pass, or in ignorance knew not that it could not come to pass, either to the frustration of His purpose or the discredit of His foreknowledge? You see how many weighty remarks might be made on this subject; but I am restrained by the fact of having treated on it a little while ago, so that I content myself with this brief and passing admonition.

St. John Chrysostom

Homily 25 on the Gospel of John

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240125.htm

What advantages it to be bound by the ties of earthly family, if we are not joined by those of the spiritual? What profits nearness of kin on earth, if we are to be strangers in heaven? For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful. He has not the same Head, he has not the same Father, he has not the same City, nor Food, nor Raiment, nor Table, nor House, but all are different; all are on earth to the former, to the latter all are in heaven. One has Christ for his King; the other, sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes; one has worms' work for his raiment, the other the Lord of angels; heaven is the city of one, earth of the other. Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion? Did we remove the same pangs, did we come forth from the same womb? This has nothing to do with that most perfect relationship. Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city which is above. How long do we tarry over the border, when we ought to reclaim our ancient country? We risk no common danger; for if it should come to pass, (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be no other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble. But God grant that none of those who hear these words experience that punishment!

When I read Fr. Feeney didn't know what happened hypothetically to a person if they were justified before receiving Baptism, yet were to die before receiving the sacrament, I thought it was absurd. A person who dies justified must go to Heaven.


Summa Theologica, Third Part

Question 68. Those who receive Baptism
Article 3. Should Baptism be deferred?


http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article3

Reply to Objection 3. Those who are sanctified in the womb, receive indeed grace which cleanses them from original sin, but they do not therefore receive the character, by which they are conformed to Christ. Consequently, if any were to be sanctified in the womb now, they would need to be baptized, in order to be conformed to Christ's other members by receiving the character.

When I read that, and read again what St. John Chrysostom wrote concerning Acts 10:47, I think I can see the conundrum Fr. Feeney was in.

It's apparent that a person can receive the Holy Ghost before the reception of the sacrament of Baptism, even after the Law of Baptism was instituted.