CathInfo.com

So then you have St. Robert Bellarmine ... who also contradicts himself.

When he famously laid out the requirements for membership in the Church, St. Robert famously included Communion in the Sacraments, whereby Catechumens were outside the Church.  But then he later somehow includes them in the Church, mysteriously ignoring this requirement, without any explanation.  When he described the criteria, he went through them one by one and explained that any given ONE of them exclude from membership, so it's not that you can have 3 out of the 4 and have some kind of partial membership, which is probably how I would have thought about it.  And yet he says that they're somehow in the vestibule of the Church.

You will note that he does in fact limit it to Catechumens only, and only .001% of all modern BoDers do ... and he even admits there was no Patristic consensus on the matter (though I'd argue there was ... AGAINST BoD) ... but do you want to know what his theological reasoning for this was?

... that the contrary "would seem too harsh".

Yikes.  For the eminently rational and rigorous systematic theologian that he was, he couldn't help but let that bit of Jesuit come out there.

No, we don't draw theological conclusions from "it would seem too harsh".  Sadly, that's precisely what ALL of BoD speculation is based on, that God would somehow be "mean" to exclude these.  Where does this lead?  Where God would be "mean" to exclude sodomites who were born that way?  Where does this nonsense stop?

CATHOLIC THEOLOGY by definition uses Revealed Truths and draws additional conclusions from them by applying reason.  You don't pull stuff out of thin air for emotional reasons.

I HAVE NOT YET SEEN A SINGLE THEOLOGICAL PROOF FOR BOD.

Closest I've ever seen was St. Thomas, but that wasn't a proof either, but merely an explanation.  He said that the Sacraments are visible signs of invisible grace, and in BoD he just gratuitously asserts that the invisible grace is conferred without the visible sign.  Zero actual proof.  So, can there be Holy Orders of Desire or Confirmation of Desire?  Those are, BTW, the other two Sacraments that confer a character.  In no way can a character be conferred without the actual Sacrament.

There are only three ways in which certain propositions can be known to be dogmtically true.

1) Direct Revelation in Sacred Scripture by Our Lord
2) Unanimous / Dogmatic Consensus among the Church Fathers, demonstrating that this had been revealed by Our Lord orally and passed on by Tradition
3) Syllogistic Reasoning can demonstrate that certain truths proceed certainly and necessarily from truths revealed by 1 or 2 above.

There's no Direct Revelation in Sacred Scripture.  There's no Unanimous Consensus of the Church Fathers (most of them reject it outright).  And NOT THEOLOGICAL PROOF has ever been made or even attempted.

As mentioned, St. Robert Bellarmine said that "it would seem too harsh" ... NOT a theological proof.  St. Thomas described how it woudl work ... if it did, but never demonstrated that it does work.

As for the rest of those theololgians cited by Father Cekada in his survey.  NOT A SINGLE ONE did more than to describe it, regurgitating the usual debunked reasoning (Ambrose and Augustine and Trent) ... but the vast majority simply mentioned it in passing ... "Yep, BoD. --> next topic".

From The Catholic Encyclopedia 

Substitutes for the sacrament
The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood.
The baptism of desire
The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men can not obtain original justice "except by the washing of regeneration or its desire" (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius.
We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it." St. Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, IV.22) and St. Bernard (Ep. lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John 3), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John 14) in favor of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquæ. It is true that some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives. Finally, it is to be noted that only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire.

The baptism of blood
The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term "washing of blood" (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (On Baptism 16) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the "washing of water" (lavacrum aquæ). "We have a second washing", he says "which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood." St. Cyprian (Epistle 73) speaks of "the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood" (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (City of God 13.7) says: "When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism."
The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (verse 32); and: "He that shall lose his life for me shall find it" (verse 39). It is pointed out that these texts are so broadly worded as to include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants can not confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Against the Valentinians 2) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church.
Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tractate 74 on the Gospel of John): "He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him." This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, though, of course, they must have attrition for past sins. The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults. (Cf. Francisco Suárez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix.)