As long as the minister uses the approved rite, intention is to be presumed. This is true even if the minister is publicly heretical even with regard to the reality of the sacrament in question:
Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament. (St. Thomas, Summa theologiae, III q. 64 a. 8)
But if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above (8, ad 2) the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister's faith is made good. (St. Thomas, Summa theologiae, III q. 64 a. 9)
One can always count on you to fly in with the theological evidentiaries.
If intent is always presumed, then why does the Church even bother stating that intent is needed for a Sacrament's validity?
"As long as the minister uses the approved rite, intention is to be presumed."
And when the approved rite is tweaked in verbage and the presentation is as casual as the local weatherman's and the chalice is some glass goblet that doesn't even approach waterford crystal in fineness (not to mention the Crucifix being replaced by cloth, the Tabernacle being moved etc.) at what point do you blink?