Ah! Infant baptism! By sprinkling.
In this case, better than immersion.
That is humorous, while as regards the mode, even though in the recent past I was under the impression (based upon my RC youth) that sprinkling is the norm, but that no longer is the case.
What method(s) of baptism does the Catholic Church use? Canon 854 has the answer: baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring, in accordance with the provisions of the Bishops’ Conference..Superficially, that would appear to suggest that baptism by sprinkling isn’t valid.
But not so fast. Note that the wording of canon 854 of the current (1983) Code of Canon Law is markedly different from the corresponding canon of the previous (1917) code. Canon 758 of the old Code of Canon Law—which is no longer in force—said that baptism is validly conferred by all three of the methods listed above. Translating the Latin wording of this old canon into English is a bit tricky, because it indicates that these three methods were not only valid, they were licit as well...
the Catholic liturgical books today say that you shouldn’t baptize by sprinkling. They don’t say you mustn’t baptize that way. That’s why canonists logically conclude that baptism by sprinkling is illicit [legal]…but valid. - http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2017/02/09/why-is-this-method-of-baptizing-illicit/
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), in his Summa Theologiae stated that "baptism may be given not only by immersion, but also by affusion of water, or sprinkling with it. But it is the safer way to baptize by immersion, because that is the most common custom" (III. 66.7).
Baptism by sprinkling or pouring came to be known as "clinical baptism," because it was first primarily used for those who were sick. No doubt because of bodily weakness the practice was used also on infants. However, sprinkling can also be traced to pagan rites. When the water of baptism became charged with a mysterious virtue, which gave it a quasi-spiritual efficacy operating more or less mechanically, the realistic symbolism of baptism by immersion was lost.
Yet the apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Romans points out that the rite of baptism by immersion ex presses symbolically our personal faith in Christ's death, burial, and resurrection in our behalf. The essence of baptism on the human side, wrought by the Holy Spirit, is a renunciation of self or a burial of the "old man" and a resurrection to a new life in which the power of the resurrected Lord is at work. Only believers' baptism by immersion can realistically symbolize the theological essence of the Biblical doctrine of baptism. - https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1978/07/how-the-doctrine-of-baptism-changed
The early practice of baptism. We can be fairly sure that early baptism was not normally by sprinkling. Other possible alternatives were pouring (affusion) and immersion. Probably immersion was the norm. A number of factors point in this direction. First the wider usage of the word baptizO generally has the sense of dip-ping or immersing, for example, the dyeing of cloth. Second, John's location at Salim, because "there was much water there," suggests a practice that used a lot of water On 3:23). Third, immersion better expresses the radical notion of rebirth, of dying and rising again, that is central to baptismal theology On 3:3-6; Rom 6:1-11; Tit 3:5). Fourth, the continuing practice of the Orthodox Church is to immerse (babies). One can imagine a shift in practice toward sprinkling in the West after infant baptism became the norm. It is difficult to imagine a shift in the East toward immersion after infant baptism became the norm. Finally, the concession of the Di-dache in allowing pouring where factors made the normal mode of baptism prob-lematic also points toward baptism by immersion (Did. 7.3). The church took the mode of baptism seriously, with immersion a normal requirement, though not an absolute one. - Introducing Early Uhristianity A lop cal Survey of Its Lite. By Laurie Guy
However, while Catholicism places great weight upon paedobaptism, yet once again there is not one description of this in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, and it is contrary to its meaning and the predominate denotation of "baptismo," and the stated requirement for baptism, leaving Catholics to extrapolate it out of brief mentions of whole household baptisms. and make it into a magical act.
But the manifest reality is that it just leaves them wet.