The one good "fruit" of baptism of desire (BOD) they say, is salvation. But can it deliver? BOD is not a formal teaching of the Catholic Church. It is not a doctrine. Consider some of the other fruits of BOD, all plainly destructive to the faith.  Below is a partial list of the fruits of BOD.

By their fruits you will know them.... Mathew 7:16

THE FRUITS OF BAPTISM OF DESIRE

Baptism of desire (BOD) denies the necessity of the sacrament of baptism for salvation.

BOD mocks the sacrament of baptism because it is not a sacrament. It is not an outward sign instituted by Christ. It is not a gateway to the other sacraments, does not remit sin, does not impart the baptismal character, all of which are intrinsic to justification wrought by the sacrament of baptism and necessary for salvation.

BOD promotes the Protestant heresy that faith alone saves.

BOD leads many Catholics to believe abortion is a source of hope for infants since infants are not guilty of actual sin.

BOD contradicts the Catholic teaching: One Lord, one faith, one baptism, since, BOD, by definition, is not baptism.

Advocates admit BOD does not make anyone a member of the Church. Since the Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church, BOD cannot save.

BOD promotes laxity and indifferentism because people often rest in a person's desire for heaven rather than do the work to help get them baptized.

BOD is nothing like Baptism because the grace is not assured.

BOD is foreign to true Baptism because the water and words are not used.

BOD rewards perseverance in sin.

BOD is not a sacrament, nor has it been defined, yet BOD is said to replace Baptism, the one sacrament that is necessary for salvation.

BOD suggests the God is impotent, because due to circuмstance, the Almighty is unable to provide Baptism for certain individuals.

BOD implies God is not author of life and death because certain problems prevent God from providing Baptism.

BOD makes liars of popes and saints who teach no one who dies outside the Catholic Church is saved.

BOD is said to save some outside the Church, making the doctrine of "No Salvation Outside the Church" a false teaching.

BOD mocks the Holy Spirit Who tells us in scripture to be washed for the remission of sins.

BOD makes Jesus a liar, Who says: "Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema".

BOD mocks scripture 1 Peter 3:21 a verse that says "baptism now saves you" by suggesting that an unprovided death can do the same.

BOD undermines the Council of Trent which took great care to define the form and matter of baptism in very specific detail.

BOD denies Catholic teaching that a person must be baptized by another.

BOD denies this canon in Trent: "If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema'.

BOD is a fine example of how one twists into a metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "unless one is born of water and the Holy Spirit, let him be anathema."

BOD voids another infallible canon in Trent that states: "If anyone says that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."

BOD undermines Christ's missionary mandate.

BOD suggests God is unmerciful unless He contradicts Himself, Church teaching and provide salvation without Baptism.

BOD is a nothing more than Satan's counterfeit substitute for a necessary sacrament.

If I were the pope, I would solemnly ban all mention of BoD among Catholics.  Its fruits are all bad.  I don't agree with all the points in your post, and BoD CAN be understood in a sense which does not lead to all of the bad fruits listed above, but in practice it can do no good.  If people don't believe in BoD, but God does in fact will that some be saved that way, then there's actually a GREATER chance that they will be saved that way because they would more ardently desire the Sacrament of Baptism.  So, in other words, believing in BoD doesn't help people be saved but could very well hinder them from being saved.  On the other hand, belief in BoD has led inexorably to religious indifferentism.  NOTHING GOOD HAS EVER COME OF BELIEF IN BOD.

If I were the pope, I would solemnly ban all mention of BoD among Catholics.  Its fruits are all bad.  I don't agree with all the points in your post, and BoD CAN be understood in a sense which does not lead to all of the bad fruits listed above, but in practice it can do no good.  If people don't believe in BoD, but God does in fact will that some be saved that way, then there's actually a GREATER chance that they will be saved that way because they would more ardently desire the Sacrament of Baptism.  So, in other words, believing in BoD doesn't help people be saved but could very well hinder them from being saved.  On the other hand, belief in BoD has led inexorably to religious indifferentism.  NOTHING GOOD HAS EVER COME OF BELIEF IN BOD.

Not one of my points is false.  If so, please show why.  Even if Bod can be understood in another way, what effect does understanding have to do with bod?  Bod is not effected by my belief.  The problem with bod is that if I believe it, it changes nothing for the person some say will get it.  If I don't believe it, it changes nothing for the person some say will get it. The ONLY thing bod does is undermine my own apostolic zeal.  

I have an example of a bad fruit of believing in BOD. I have heard of priests denying the sacrament of Baptism to Muslims and Jews because their conversion will cause difficulties. Instead of Baptizing them they assure the Muslims and Jews that they will be saved by Baptism of Desire so they really don't need to be Baptized. I think this is presumption.

I have seen the same thing.  The thought of it is so aggravating! But it happens all the time.  Try to correct them, too. Bod'ers don't go after those people, they just insist bod exists...their way.  Well, good luck, bod'ers.  You got a lot of clean up to do pushing non- baptism to the point people beyond your control have taken a ridiculous belief to the destruction of millions.

Quote from: Ladislaus

BoD CAN do all this when abused by the likes of LoT.  When understood in the Thomistic sense, it doesn't have to.

Father Feeney said it best.  BoD actually undermines the possibility of BoD because if people think they can be saved that way, they do not yearn as ardently as necessary for the Sacrament.  In fact, they begin to desire the desire for Baptism rather than Baptism itself.

Baptism of desire rests on the premise that God CANNOT otherwise get Baptism to His elect.  That is impossible.

I perfectly agree.  I consider this premise to be heretical.  Cushingites claim that God cannot be bound by the Sacraments and yet assert at the same time that God can be bound by "impossibility".  That's heretical.

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.

I have an example of a bad fruit of believing in BOD. I have heard of priests denying the sacrament of Baptism to Muslims and Jews because their conversion will cause difficulties. Instead of Baptizing them they assure the Muslims and Jews that they will be saved by Baptism of Desire so they really don't need to be Baptized. I think this is presumption.

That is insane.  Who were these Priest?  Having an erroneous belief in BOD that causes bad fruits.  Simply believing what the Church teaches on it (nothing more and nothing less) does not cause bad fruits.

Every example of the "bad fruits" of baptism of desire is based on a straw man rather than reality.  

Yes and no.  Most of them are based on the distorted notion of BoD that 99% of all BoDers have rather than on Thomistic BoD ... which very few hold.  So it's certainly a REALITY ... in the sense that almost everyone who believes in BoD believes in the distorted heretical notion of BoD.

Quote from: Matto

I have an example of a bad fruit of believing in BOD. I have heard of priests denying the sacrament of Baptism to Muslims and Jews because their conversion will cause difficulties. Instead of Baptizing them they assure the Muslims and Jews that they will be saved by Baptism of Desire so they really don't need to be Baptized. I think this is presumption.

That is insane.  Who were these Priest?  Having an erroneous belief in BOD that causes bad fruits.  Simply believing what the Church teaches on it (nothing more and nothing less) does not cause bad fruits.

You think it is insane? Then I will tell you one priest who did this. Archbishop Lefebvre. I bet many posters on this site will not believe me but I heard this by listening to Charles Coulombe videos on youtube. Coulombe claims that in one of Lefebvre's books he admits this. I forget which video it was in because I saw many but I imbedded it on Cathinfo a while back so you might be able to find it if you do a search. This is what was claimed in the Coulombe video: He claimed that Archbishop Lefebvre, when he was a missionary in Africa was approached by a group of Muslims who wanted to convert and be Baptized. He was worried because he thought if he Baptized the Muslims and the other Muslims found out they would retaliate with violence. So he told the Muslims they didn't need to be baptized because they would be saved by Baptism of Desire. I believed the story and it is, TKGS, based on reality (Unless Coulombe lied about it).

P.S. I said "Coulombe claims", but I don't remember if it was Coulombe or Professer Biersach, but it was one of them and you can watch their videos at this youtube channel..