Would these hypothetical baptisms be valid?

[Daniel]

Just wondering whether any of these hypothetical baptisms would be valid, and if any theologians or popes have commented on these sorts of things.

- Case 1: The baptizer takes the person-to-be-baptized into the bathroom and tells him to stand in the shower. Then the baptizer turns on the water while saying the right words with the right intention, such that the person-to-be-baptized becomes drenched by the shower water.

- Case 2: Similar to the above, except that the water is already running. (Such that it's not the baptizer who turns on the water.) Would it make a difference if the baptizer physically pushes the other person into the shower rather than telling him to step in on his own?

- Case 3: There's a baptizer, the person-to-be-baptized, and some other guy. The baptizer remotely baptizes the person using the other guy as his instrument. (i.e. The other guy, who is following the baptizer's commands, says the right words and pours the water. But the other guy doesn't have the right intention. It is only the baptizer who has the right intention.)

[Philip G.]

Just wondering whether any of these hypothetical baptisms would be valid, and if any theologians or popes have commented on these sorts of things.

- Case 1: The baptizer takes the person-to-be-baptized into the bathroom and tells him to stand in the shower. Then the baptizer turns on the water while saying the right words with the right intention, such that the person-to-be-baptized becomes drenched by the shower water.

- Case 2: Similar to the above, except that the water is already running. (Such that it's not the baptizer who turns on the water.) Would it make a difference if the baptizer physically pushes the other person into the shower rather than telling him to step in on his own?

- Case 3: There's a baptizer, the person-to-be-baptized, and some other guy. The baptizer remotely baptizes the person using the other guy as his instrument. (i.e. The other guy, who is following the baptizer's commands, says the right words and pours the water. But the other guy doesn't have the right intention. It is only the baptizer who has the right intention.)

My opinion is that one and two are highly doubtful, requiring a conditional baptism.  The novelty of the instrument used cannot be overlooked.  A sea shell comes to mind as an instrument traditionally used to administer the water.   A cupped hand I imagine functions as an instrument.  A shower is not a similar or remotely comparable instrument. 

For number three, one aspect is simple, when correct matter and form are used, correct intention is presumed.  The only proof of faulty intention lies in the matter and the form, or in obvious cases the invalidity of the minister(retardation/drunkenness).  If you are going to introduce a new concept such as "remote" baptizing, you are going to have to define it.   If you consider use of the word "commands" as a sufficient definer, I will object, and require you to define your use of the word "commands". 

[Santantonio]

Case 1: Yes, valid, if done with reverence and proper blessing.
Case 2: No
Case 3: No

[Michael Wilson]

I believe that all three are invalid, because the person who pronounces the words must also pour the water; turning a spigot on in a shower is not the same as the person pouring the water, the same for pushing the guy into the shower; even where Baptism is done by full immersion, the minister must still pour water over the person he is baptizing. #3. Is invalid because he who pours, must also pronounce the words.

[St.Justin]

I think all three are valid with the possible exception of three.
the Church recognizes immersion as valid

[Kent]

Water must flow (over the forehead) for a valid baptism; how/why it flows is not essential to the sacrament's matter. Given that immersion is a valid way of baptizing (nothing is poured in immersion but there is flow) I do not see any problems with 1 and 2.

3 is invalid. The person who is pouring the water and saying the words is the person who is baptizing, so if they have not the requisite intention they are not administering the sacrament validly.

[Philip G.]

Scenario 1 - you have a layman baptizing someone.  He also has one of his lay friends next to him as company witnessing the baptism. The baptizer begins to pour the water over the head from a cupped hand and says the words.  He says, "I baptize you in the name of the father, and of the son, and ....(then he drops dead without a sound).  The man next to him witnessing immediately steps in with water filled cupped hand and says "of the holy Ghost" while pouring.  Is it a valid baptism?  My opinion is that it is doubtful, necessitating a conditional re-baptism.

Scenario 2, replace the lay baptizer with a married priest.  Replace the lay witness next to the baptizer with the priests wife.  The priest drops dead at the same time, and the priest's wife picks up where he left off in the same manner.  Is it valid?  My opinion remains the same. 

Should we be surprised that the modernists, who likely validate both of the above, champion the married priesthood?  Solemnity is the spirit of the liturgy.

If I don't get a thumbs up from you michael wilson, I am going to be disappointed.

[Michael Wilson]

PhillipG.
The difference between the Baptism scenario and the involuntary interruption of a Mass after the words of Consecration of the Bread and before the wine, is that in the first you have the species already consecrated according to Catholic doctrine; and the Mass must be finished; in the second it depends where the words were interrupted:
After the "I"; repeat the form.
After the "I Baptize": repeat the form.
After The "I Baptize thee" ditto
After The "I Baptize Thee in the name" ditto all the way to ending with the Holy Ghost".
If the "Amen" gets omitted, it doesn't invalidate the Baptism.
I gave you a "thumbs up" because of the post's sense of humor.
I gave Kent a thumbs up, because I think he is correct and I'm mistaken.

[Philip G.]

PhillipG.
The difference between the Baptism scenario and the involuntary interruption of a Mass after the words of Consecration of the Bread and before the wine, is that in the first you have the species already consecrated according to Catholic doctrine; and the Mass must be finished; in the second it depends where the words were interrupted:
After the "I"; repeat the form.
After the "I Baptize": repeat the form.
After The "I Baptize thee" ditto
After The "I Baptize Thee in the name" ditto all the way to ending with the Holy Ghost".
If the "Amen" gets omitted, it doesn't invalidate the Baptism.
I gave you a "thumbs up" because of the post's sense of humor.
I gave Kent a thumbs up, because I think he is correct and I'm mistaken.

As it regards validity, there are not two forms to the mass.  There is one form.  Just as there are not two matter's.  If you lack one matter(wine or bread), you lack both.  And, that "catholic doctrine" applies only to the confines of an uninterrupted consecration.  It is not catholic doctrine that it applies to an interrupted consecration.  And, if a priest hickups near the end of the form, he doesn't have to go back to the very beginning and repeat it all.  He can pick up where he left off. 

I meant to include "amen", I just forgot.  So, don't let that be the reason for my reasoning regarding doubt.  And, how about the married priest bit?  "Two become one flesh".  That is as close as you are going to get to such a dual minister fantasy. 

I hope you are not in agreement with Kent that daniel's 1 and 2 are without any problems.  More comprises intention than just flowing water and the correct words.   

[St.Justin]

"As it regards validity, there are not two forms to the mass.  There is one form.  Just as there are not two matter's.  If you lack one matter(wine or bread), you lack both.  And, that "catholic doctrine" applies only to the confines of an uninterrupted consecration.
It is not catholic doctrine that it applies to an interrupted consecration.  And, if a priest hickups near the end of the form, he doesn't have to go back to the very beginning and repeat it all.  He can pick up where he left off. "

this is incorrect

[Michael Wilson]

True there is one form, but for the consecration of the species each must be pronounced over the respective species separately; see Summa III Q.78:

I answer that, This sacrament differs from the other sacraments in two respects. First of all, in this, that this sacrament is accomplished by the consecration of the matter, while the rest are perfected in the use of the consecrated matter. Secondly, because in the other sacraments the consecration of the matter consists only in a blessing, from which the matter consecrated derives instrumentally a spiritual power, which through the priest who is an animated instrument, can pass on to inanimate instruments. But in this sacrament the consecration of the matter consists in the miraculous change of the substance, which can only be done by God; hence the minister in performing this sacrament has no other act save the pronouncing of the words. And because the form should suit the thing, therefore the form of this sacrament differs from the forms of the other sacraments in two respects. First, because the form of the other sacraments implies the use of the matter, as for instance, baptizing, or signing; but the form of this sacrament implies merely the consecration of the matter, which consists in transubstantiation, as when it is said, "This is My body," or, "This is the chalice of My blood." Secondly, because the forms of the other sacraments are pronounced in the person of the minister, whether by way of exercising an act, as when it is said, "I baptize thee," or "I confirm thee," etc.; or by way of command, as when it is said in the sacrament of order, "Take the power," etc.; or by way of entreaty, as when in the sacrament of Extreme Unction it is said, "By this anointing and our intercession," etc. But the form of this sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so that it is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ.

And Article 2

Reply to Objection 2. God's word operated in the creation of things, and it is the same which operates in this consecration, yet each in different fashion: because here it operates effectively and sacramentally, that is, in virtue of its signification. And consequently the last effect of the consecration must needs be signified in this sentence by a substantive verb of the indicative mood and present time. But in the creation of things it worked merely effectively, and such efficiency is due to the command of His wisdom; and therefore in the creation of things the Lord's word is expressed by a verb in the imperative mood, as in Genesis 1:3: "Let there be light, and light was made."

Therefore the bread becomes the body of Christ upon the pronouncement of the last word of the consecration of the bread.

[MaximGun]

I believe that all three are invalid, because the person who pronounces the words must also pour the water; turning a spigot on in a shower is not the same as the person pouring the water, the same for pushing the guy into the shower; even where Baptism is done by full immersion, the minister must still pour water over the person he is baptizing. #3. Is invalid because he who pours, must also pronounce the words.

I would say none are valid because the person doing it needs to do it mindful of what the Church and God intends.  In all three cases they are being a deliberate idiot and messing around with something sacred.