Exactly. Desire + action. And Charlie died before the action took place. So he didn’t convert.
Yes, and we say, quite simply, that he was lost ... despite some hypothetical possibility that in some last instant of consciousness he was given a choice and converted, since ...
1) the presumption is tantamount to moral certainty, and I don't go around all day saying that I merely presume that I'm validly baptized (since I don't have absolute proof). Now I COULD find out some day, God forbid, that the priest botched my Baptism, and similarly we COULD find out that Kirk was somehow saved (assuming for the sake of argument that he's even dead), but that does not mean we prevaricate and hem-haw about his condition because ...
2) the constant hem-haw about possible extraordinary exceptions leads almost immediately to making the exceptions less and less extraordinary and more and more ordinary, which then quickly leads to a complete erosion of faith in EENS dogma and religious indifferentism ... which is precisely why Pope Gregory XVI denounced the bishop who requested (private) prayer for a departed Protestant
We say, very simply, that (if he's dead) Kirk was lost, since he died outside the Church. No ifs, ands, or buts. Period. If we're wrong ... then we're wrong, just as if I'm wrong about my being validly baptized, then I'm wrong. But in the meantime I don't wonder at every Mass I attend whether either I or the priest offering the Mass was validly baptized. I operate on that moral certainty of presumption as if it were fact, plain and simple.
Finally, as I said about the postive doubt regarding NO Ordinations (which I consider rather more than just mere positive doubt), what are the consequences of being wrong.
1) if I say Kirk is lost and don't pray for him, the consequences is that Kirk spends more time in Purgatory than he might otherwise have, except of course, there's no guarantee that our prayers for Poor Souls are applied anyway. And of course God can always apply general prayers for Poor Souls to any that He so chooses. Worst case, extra Purgatory time would be fitting for him since he spent his entire life (minus one second) outside the Church (and defending genocide, blaspheming Our Lady etc. etc). So because, what?, Kirk became rich and famous, he somehow deserves a flood of prayers from Catholics, while a poor old lady or old man who has few friends, gets 3 people at her funeral and nobody praying for the repose of her soul? Utter nonsense.
2) if you say Kirk could have been saved, the consequence is the erosion of faith in EENS dogma, and religious indifferentism (per Pope Gregory XVI)
Very simple answer here.
95% of those who say they are praying for Kirk don't even actually do so, except maybe for 5 seconds ... but are just virtue signalling and using it as a substitute for being "nithe", where I want to make his departed relatives "feel good" and to "console" them. OK, great, but if these relatives are outside the Church ... then it would be charity to make them FEEL BAD. Feeling good about Kirk's chances simply confirms them in their complacency that they can be saved without conversion. But if they heard a unanimous chorus from Catholics that Kirk's chances were slim to none, that might actually goad their conscience to at least consider cooperating with some actual graces toward their own conversion and salvation.
It's analogous to the Bogus Ordo "white ѕυιcιdє" funerals. I was about 10 when I served the funeral of a ѕυιcιdє, where the priest announced from the pulpit that the ѕυιcιdє was "in a better place now". So, what if I, the altar boy, had grown up to face some extreme adversity, and decided that I too wished to flee this life to that "better place" promised by the heretical presider? Oh, well, the presider was "nithe" to that ѕυιcιdє's family, but do we know how many people may have been LOST eternally due to his actions and words? I'm sure that many have by the combined attitude of the Conciliar Church. I've had people tell me that they would have committed ѕυιcιdє except that they realized that it would not end their suffering but make it much worse, for all eternity. So, then who was REALLY charitable, the person that took it on the chin for being "mean" ... and yet may have saved souls, or the "nithe" one who maybe made someone "feeeel" good, but cost souls their eternal salvation.
Snap out of this, people. It's shameful to see these attitudes from Trads, the emotional virtue signalling and clinging to "nitheness" while throwing real charity under the bus ... especially on a Resistance Forum here where Bishop Williamson spent much of his preaching calling out the difference between true charity (which is always rooted in truth) and the fake "nitheness" for people's "feeewings".