[ears_to_hear]

An anathema is a formal excommunication; only God has the power to damn someone. The penalty of "anathema" does not exist in canon law since 1983. Any textbook of canon law will tell you that canonical penalties only apply to those within the church. In fact, you'll also find that in texts of dogmatic theology like Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
I'm always delighted to learn that you have enough time on your hands to attempt to become expert in the theology of my religion as well as that of your own. I find that I have very little time available to study Protestant theology, and need to spend my scarce free time studying the scriptures and learning to love the Lord. I hope you understand.

That is the current definition as given by Rome, not the original greek rendering which by usage at Trent says nothing about "excommunication

Trent was directed at many that were already "excommunicated" . They just wanted to add some hatred and curses on those that would follow Christ and not Rome

anathema
a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction a) a curse b) a man accursed, devoted to the direst of woes

As seen in its usage here

Act 23:14 And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul.

And here

1Cr 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

Your churches attempts to cover its ruthless hatred of the reformers is hollow

[Campion]

not the original greek rendering

It's a technical term of art, so the original Greek meaning is not relevant. There was, at the time of Trent, a formal liturgy for making someone "anathema".

Your churches attempts to cover its ruthless hatred of the reformers is hollow

LOL. Poor dears. As though the "reformers" didn't say far, far worse than that about Rome.

[RobbyS]

You need to read the decrees of the early councils. They are full of anathemas. But as for the Reformers, their writing are full of anathemas—for the Catholic Church and for their fellow Reformers. As for following “Christ rather than Rome,” that is a simple misstatement. Protestants were chosing to following the teachings of individuals of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli rather than those of Rome. You are, of course, free to reject Catholic dogma. But is it honest not to admit that you are following other dogmas? Neither sola Scriptura no justification by faith alone meet the simple test of being clearly stated in the Scriptures. Just compare Romans with the crisp logic of Calvin’s
work. In Calvin one sees a French canon lawyer at work. In Paul one sees a theologian of a very different sort, and his views have clearly be forced onto the procratian bed that Calvin has built. And despite all the books written on the subject, none one, certainly, not Calvin,, has managed to reconcile what James said with Calvin’s interpretation of Paul.