Why did the Church insist on catechumens receiving instruction before the sacrament?  Why not baptize as soon as they have expressed a desire to submit to the Church’s doctrine?  It seems to me to be a tacit admission that a catechumen is already under the Church’s protection.  If I were a catechumen wouldn’t I have a good case to argue that it is an injustice to risk my eternal salvation in order to prove my good faith?  What percentage of catechumens fall away before baptism and what percentage fall after?  My guess is that the greater number fall after.  So why not baptize after a simple profession of faith?  That certainly would have resulted in more souls being saved during times of persecution.  How would we condemn a catechumen for having a friend baptize him before the instruction?  There seems to be a conflict between the good of the individual and the good of the society as a whole there and I don’t see how that could be.

Yes, indeed.  I pointed this out to LoT once, that God must positively will for people to be saved via BoD rather than by receiving the Sacrament.  LoT conceded this.  So I asked him why God would will that.  He responded something about how God must want them to receive some temporal punishment due to sin in Purgatory (pushing that faulty St. Alphonsus theory).

And, yes, the emotional aversion people have to "nice people" or "sincere people" not being saved is that they would go to hell -- and they have a very monolithic idea of hell where everybody is tossed indiscriminately into a burning furnace, with a kindly old Jєωιѕн grandmother who gave her life for her children right next to Joe Stalin, suffering the same torments.  But one of the EENS definitions points out that the torments are of varying degrees.  And I too believe that there are many in hell who suffer very little.  And I believe that a BoD would remit a great deal of the suffering they would experience, while a BoB would eliminate nearly all of it ... putting people into a near-limbo state.  But the superntural gift of the beatific vision is owed to no one; it is above our nature and is not even required for our perfect natural happiness.  Beatific vision is a free gift of God and He gives it to whomever He chooses.

Wow. Baptism of water is the Sacrament of Baptism yes or no?
If it is, which it is, then he is definitely saying that the Sacrament is not necessary and true conversion provides what is lacking from not receiving the Sacrament.
It is an error and if held obstinately, after the definitions of Vatican 1, is a heresy. No matter how you try to justify it, they are saying that the Sacrament is not necessary.

Then we have St. Alphonsus who says: "Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato… Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious."

He says it is comparable to true Baptism because it is not Baptism, the Sacrament. Therefore, he is saying that the Sacrament is not necessary and that infants may be saved if they are killed for the faith, and even teaches that to oppose this is temerarious. This is another direct contradiction to Dogma as a result.

If you will look above at what I highlighted in your statement you'll see that this part implies that there is salvation without the prerequisite Sacramental Water Baptism. Yes, it is erroneous. If held to obstinately, it is heresy.
How about this comparable statement: "The only people who could be saved outside the Church are those who profess that they have no other means of salvation". It automatically assumes salvation outside the Church. Therefore, it contradicts Dogma.

and they say that this exception is made because Christ said, no less absolutely than his requirement of baptism, “Whoever confesses me I will confess before my father.”

Now if some posit an individual who professes Christ, but dies without baptism through no fault of his own, and that such a person could not be saved, do they make Christ a liar?

Is this statement heretical-
“The only people who could be saved without sacramental water baptism are those who profess they have no other means of salvation.”
Where is the denial of necessity?

But someone who requests entrance into the catechumenate has already expressed a desire and consent (at least implicitly) for baptism.  So why wait for months of instruction?  The Ethiopian eunuch was baptised after less than a day of instruction.