9. But what about the Baltimore Catechism and Vatican II?
The Baltimore Catechism is not infallible. It was the creation of James Cardinal Gibbons, 19th century Archbishop of Baltimore and a notorious Americanist (a heresy condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1893). His Eminence intended it to replace more orthodox catechisms---like St. John Neumann's---which did not menton desire. Vatican II was not a doctrinal council. It neither defined dogma nor anathematised those who disagreed. Such men as Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J., who were experts there, admittedly lobbied to change Church teaching, and planted "time bombs" in the documents. These were open-ended statements, vague enough to mollify the orthodox, but also able to be seized upon by the radicals after the Council as mandates to do whatever they chose. At Vatican II's end, Paul VI, aware that there was contradiction between the Council and prior teaching, declared that if such contradictions were perceived, the given document must be interpreted by prior tradition. Neither the Baltimore Catechism nor Vatican II could reverse prior dogmatic definitions.
Neither are you and Coloumbe, Gerard.
On a side note, these conspiracy theories about Baptism of Desire really are something: "His Eminence intended it to replace more orthodox catechisms---like St. John Neumann's---which did not menton desire". Coloumbe apparently doesn't know Latin, either (what's with all these Feeneyite Latin 'scholars' popping up, who insist that "votum" can't mean "desire"? This is almost as bad as the "pro multis" fiasco from ICEL. Isn't it strange that they know Latin better than St. Alphonsus Liguori? LOL). His twisting of Trent's canon against Calvin's metaphor is incredible. How can any reasonable person believe that Trent anathematized the common doctrine of the Catholic Church, and then did it in such an ambiguous manner that no one noticed for 400 years?