Okay, now we're getting somewhere. You state Ecclesia is authoritative. Fine. The only problem is that it is in direct conflict with a more authoritative document--Canon Law. Canon 1323 allows for a subject to disobey if he fears a state of necessity. It says nothing about whether such a state must exist or not. The canon is only concerned with the interior state of the subject and how he perceives a situation. If said subject sincerely believed there was a state of necessity which forced him to disobey, no penalty is incurred according to canon 1323. The Archbishop evoked the canon--legally and honestly.
But this is not all. Not only does a canon allow for disobedience under certain conditions, but another canon stated that even if the individual were WRONG about such a state of necessity, as long as he sincerely believed there was an emergency, no penalty is incurred. How much clearer can this be? It was not up to the Pope to decide what was in the Archbishop's mind when he "disobeyed", it was the Archbishop's call, not the Pope's.
If the Pope had wanted to prove that the Archbishop was culpable, he ought not to have relied on a latae sententiae decree, but on a formal tribunal, the traditional route for disciplining high churchmen. Such a tribunal would have called witnesses, allowed for a full airing of the dispute, and rendered a fair-and-square verdict, ferendae sententiae. He didn't do this--probably because this would have given the Archbishop the right to defend himself. It would have meant bringing up embarrassing conflicts regarding matters of faith in which the papacy was at loggerheads with the Church's own Tradition. So the Pope did an end-run and used the pretext of an automatic latae sententiae to falsely charge the Archbishop with excommunication and schism. \
As for what the Pontiff owes me or doesn't owe me--that is a ridiculous point to bring up. I am not important--but the faith itself is. The Pope owes explanations not to me, but to millions like myself who expect more from a pope than poetry. We expect a vigorous defense of the traditional faith--not novelties that have nothing to do with the faith. We want faith-affirming Masses and clearly Catholic catechesis for our children. We want bishops who are devout and orthodox not corrupt and apostate. It is all well and good that he is so worried about Buddhists and Jews and Muslims. But his own Catholic sheep are starving. He needs to follow Christ's injunction to feed his lambs and his sheep before he attends to the Hindus.
Just as you seem to think that actual Catholics have some obligation to entertain each and every fantasy notion against Catholicism and the Church concocted by the schismatic in the street, you apparently believe that the pope had some obligation to waste time (his or anyone else's) acting as though ecclesiastical rebellion in the illicit consecration of four rebellious bishops (to prolong Marcel's disobedience when he would assume room temperature) was a subject worthy of debate. The Vatican is not the United States. It is an absolute monarchy. Guess who the monarch is?
Why do you suppose that some tribunal composed of officials inferior in authority to the pope would be a preferable tribunal? No doubt because you are well aware of how the pope would have ruled by virtue of how he DID rule.
Even in the courts of the United States with all our constitutional protections, a judge may (and often does) summarily find miscreants in contempt of court without the taking of ANY evidence when the defiance of authority takes place in the presence of the court (even in such attenuated circumstances as written communications to jurors who are regarded as part of the court for contempt purposes). It is not hard to recognize Marcel and the Econe 4 and their sycophants as being in ongoing continuing contempt (another day another punishment). Popes have even more authority than minor league trial judges.
You may expect whatever you please to fantasize. You will get what authority sees fit to give you. Charge is not the appropriate verb. JP II EXCOMMUNICATED Marcel and the Econe 4 and declared his (and your) coven of defiance in SCHISM including each adherent. As Aristotle said: A is A.
The pope has NO obligation to "prove" what is clear as can be; He need only govern the Church and rebellious Marcel and company. He did. You don't find that acceptable because you have bought the schism. Tough.
The pope feeds his flock. If you don't like the menu, find one you like and pester that church or continue in the one y'all have created. It's your party and you'll cry if you want to (by virtue of your error). As to your children, their catechesis is YOUR responsibility as a parent and you will stand responsible before God if you lead them into error.
It would seem likely that you should start practicing the faith before you try to discipline its hierarchy (as though you could). You have free will. Remember the wages of its abuse.