I’m going to guess this ritual was similar to a priest on certain occasions sprinkling the people with holy water, which does remind us of our baptism.
Similar words were used in the article about the ritual water she was using, “....for a baptism remembrance”.
The ritual exercise cost the cardinal nothing. The water was not holy water; there was no baptism apparently;the woman was neither a religious nor a priest, and so it seems to amount to nothing more than a friendly gesture to participate in, with a lay person, from his probable point of view.
Maybe not, but the media does love to stir up questions, doubts and controversy.
The message projected by that picture reeks of relativism. To the casual observer (or to the poorly catechized, low information Catholic) the message received is that the Cardinal and the female minister are comparable. Go to one or the other for sacraments. What difference does it make?