I would gladly be right there with you, Ladislaus, in being against baptism of desire, if only to slam the door shut on this expanding, sloppy concept of EENS that is one of our modern plagues.  The problem is that this means those invalidly baptized, or baptized by priests without the proper intention, cannot be saved, which doesn't sit well with me.  

Granted, that may be sentimental.  What is more to the point is that denying baptism of desire would also deny baptism of blood which goes back to Tertullian and has its roots in the teachings of the Fathers.  Many of the Fathers who were extremely strict on baptism's necessity allowed for baptism of blood.  The idea of a catechumen fervently professing Christ who is killed and goes to hell is injurious to the faith, in my opinion.  Would God really want catechumens to stay silent and not preach Christ when challenged, in case they might be killed?  You can say "Well, maybe this catechumen would one day have become a heretic so God allowed him to be killed out of mercy."  Okay -- but how would it look to other Catholics to see a priest condemning someone to hell who died for the name of Christ while a catechumen in the Catholic Church?  

Denying baptism of blood creates all kinds of impious scenarios of this sort, and of course God would have accounted for all these contingencies beforehand.  He did this, in my opinion, by truly giving Himself the ability to save someone without water baptism.

Raoul, you really need to stay away from this can-o-worms.

1) I don't think that explicit BoD necessarily undermines EENS, so that's not my reason for opposing it.  I don't have that as my driving "ulterior motive".

2) If a person were not validly baptized, then God allowed that to happen.  I am a proponent of the position that intention means intending to do what the Church does.  That's why heretics can validly baptized.  Even if a Mason were in his mind thinking "I do not intend to baptize", he in fact DID intend to baptize if he said the words prescribed by the Church.  But that's a separate issue.  God manages all our affairs in His Providence.  He could just as easily have willed that such a person be born among the animists and not receive Baptism at all.  God is NOT CONSTRAINED BY IMPOSSIBILITY.  This idea that BoD/BoB supply in cases of impossibility is borderline blasphemous, for "With God all things are possible."  IMPOSSIBILITY does not make a compelling argument.  Nor does God have to "give Himself the ability to save souls" by instituting BoB and BoD.  It would be NOTHING to God to arrange matters in such a way that all His elect received water Baptism.  In fact, the dozens of examples of saints raising people back to life in order to confer water Baptism upon them was to show that there's nothing God cannot do to grant Baptism to one of His elect.

2) We do not know why God would refuse Baptism to a catechumen being martyred.  Perhaps that person would have sinned more in having some day rejected and turned his back on the graces and promises of Baptism and thus merited a greater eternal punishment.  We absolutely cannot know this.  Why does God allows babies to be aborted without Baptism when they have committed no actual sins?  Why does God allow even children to sometimes die cruel deaths?  We cannot know the mysteries of God's Providence.  I have known people who left the Church due to some tragedy that they deemed incompatible with their belief in a good God.  So let's not open this can of worms.

3) Who cares what people think of a priest?  Those same people have also condemned the Church for refusing Christian burial to ѕυιcιdєs and for saying that unbaptized babies are in hell.

Remember that in hell the actual sufferings are based on the good vs. the bad that a person has done.  Someone who dies a catechumen while shedding his blood for Christ may render his eternal fate much less severe, and perhaps--IMO--even suffer no torments at all, having received a certain remission of actual punishment due to sin from this martyrdom.  As opposed to perhaps what would have happened had this person been baptized and renounced his baptism, for his sin then would have been greater.

So only God knows why people are born into their circuмstances, why their lives progress the way they do, and why some receive certain graces that others do not.

St. Robert Bellarmine also argued--regretfully--in favor of BoD based on this "it would seem too harsh" mentality.

I'll stay open with regard to the justification mechanism in the Old Testament.  Certain aspects of it are definitely puzzing, which is why I think some theologians were speculating that SOMEthing was missing from it that, say, Baptism provides (e.g. remission of sins or something).

I am a bit puzzled by the Limbo of the Fathers if in fact those in there had sanctifying grace.

So I'll just leave it at that.  I don't think we're going to solve this problem.

Really, my original argument was that we cannot draw conclusions about BoB/BoD from the OT because the justification mechanism was different then than since Our Lord's Passion.

I admit that it would be hard to swallow that someone like St. Joseph was not in a state of sanctifying grace.  But there was something lacking there, since St. Joseph had to wait with everyone else.  So, I'm actually being forced to reconsider my earlier dismissal of Father Feeney's justification/salvation distinction, and understanding why those OT just were in Limbo might be the key.

Here are some other additional questions about BoB.

Let's say that I'm a Catholic in a state of unrepented mortal sin.  I'm walking down the street and some Muslim, for instance, shoots me in the back of the head for being Catholic.  But I have no idea what hit me.  Am I saved?

Let's say I'm that Catholic and I have a certain attrition (but not contrition) for my sin and an implicit intention to get to Confession at some point.  Am I saved then if I'm shot in the head as per above?

Or is it the presumed perfect charity involved in a more typical martyrdom that supplies the remission of sins?  St. Augustine specifically called out the "suffering" aspect of BoB as the element which justifies.  But what if my martyrdom--as in the example above--entails no suffering and no will to lay down my life for Christ?

So then how can that work for those who have not yet reached the age of reason?

http://www.saintsworks.net/books/St.%20Alphonsus%20Maria%20de%20Liguori%20-%20Complete%20Works%20-%209%20-%20Victories%20of%20the%20Martyrs.pdf

Look on page 291.

I didn't forget about you, Vladimir.  I have a slower internet connection and it took a while to download this book.

Well, the only thing we have is a note from the "ED" (which I'm assuming is the editor of the English translation) to the effect that St. Genesius did not receive Baptism because the Sacrament was confected in a play (therefore lacking the requisite intention).  That's his opinion only.  That doesn't come even from St. Alphonsus.  I believe that the Sacrament he received was valid because the one who conferred it was intending to DO what the Church DOES.  That's why atheists can validly baptized.  They could in their minds think, "This is useless and doesn't do anything, and this ritual accomplishes nothing.", but they would still validly confect the Sacrament because they intend to DO what the Church DOES.  St. Genesius received the grace of being properly disposed BEFORE the Baptism was conferred upon him.  Nor does the narrative rule out that Genesius would have been baptized sometime after he was denounced but before he was martyred.

Here are some other additional questions about BoB.

Let's say that I'm a Catholic in a state of unrepented mortal sin.  I'm walking down the street and some Muslim, for instance, shoots me in the back of the head for being Catholic.  But I have no idea what hit me.  Am I saved?

Let's say I'm that Catholic and I have a certain attrition (but not contrition) for my sin and an implicit intention to get to Confession at some point.  Am I saved then if I'm shot in the head as per above?

Or is it the presumed perfect charity involved in a more typical martyrdom that supplies the remission of sins?  St. Augustine specifically called out the "suffering" aspect of BoB as the element which justifies.  But what if my martyrdom--as in the example above--entails no suffering and no will to lay down my life for Christ?

So then how can that work for those who have not yet reached the age of reason?

1. In accordance with Catholic teaching, that soul would be damned I think.

2. I still don't think so. To many people don't realize what a great (infinite) offense mortal sin is to God. You obviously don't have a mind if after you commit a mortal sin, you are walking casually around town with the attitude "I'll get to Confession at some point". People like this aren't penitents but mockers of God. As soon as you commit a mortal sin, you should pray to God to spare your life and grant you the grace to have a perfect or imperfect contrition and allow you to live until your next Confession. Instead, some people will try to seek comfort, like David, in creatures instead, but will find none. In the end, they make lukewarm confessions and fall again.

Ladislaus,
You have a valid point that it is the comment of the editor, and not Saint Alphonsus writing that. However, I think that the Saint mentions others being "baptized in their blood". However, I'll leave it to you to research that if you want to dig deeper, since you already downloaded the book. Its a great read!