Catholic restricted from Communion (Note: This is in Holland)

A Catholic Charismatic woman desired to have her baptism blessed by immersion in water (she had been baptized as a child in the Catholic church).

She presumed that it was not possible for the blessing of her baptism by immersion by the Catholic Church. (This is not the problem)

Problem: So she went to a Evangelical church and they did baptized her by immersion; she not being aware of the consequences of her actions. 

When the local Catholic priest found out about her action, he told her, in front of the whole congregation, that she was not allowed to receive Communion anymore. She, being a daily communicant, was of course devastated to tears.

Is this a correct answer?

As far as I have researched: She, having no knowledge of the law and of the
penalty means that she did not defy the authority of the Church. Through the sacrament of confession, if she repents for not knowing the penalty of her action, then she would be welcomed back to full communion in the Church and can receive Communion again. It is best to do this with the priest who first gave her the restriction. Is this a god response to send the woman? See the code of Canon Law 1312, 1358.

Is this a correct opinion?

In my opinion, the priest should also ask her forgiveness for his public tactlessness baptism for forbidding her to receive Communion during the Liturgy. He should have first talked to her in private.
Given that the woman had already been baptized in the Catholic Church, there was no need for her to &quot;bless&quot; her baptism in any sense. Deliberately participating in the rites of another ecclesial community likely constitutes what canon 1365 of the Code of Canon Law calls &quot;prohibited participation in sacred rites&quot;. According to the canon, this is to be punished with &quot;a just penalty&quot;.
What constitutes a just penalty, then, and how is it imposed, and who has the authority to impose it? First of all, a &quot;just penalty&quot; is one that matches the severity of the crime—so it would have to be determined by the judge (i.e. the one imposing the penalty) that it is a reasonable response to the crime; neither too harsh nor too lax. Forbidding someone from receiving communion is rather harsh, but has been imposed by some bishops (for example, on politicians who vote in favor of bills supporting freer availability of abortion).
This brings us to the last question: Who has the authority to impose such a penalty? It is, in fact, only the ordinary who has authority to do this. It is certainly possible that the ordinary has issued a letter to each parish stating that exclusion from Communion is the standard response for deliberately participating in the sacred rites of another ecclesial community. Absent such a general rule, though, the priest has no authority to do this on his own.
If the bishop did not impose such a general penalty for the diocese, then (given that the priest had no authority to impose it in her case specifically) is the woman excluded from Communion? ABSOLUTELY AND CERTAINLY NOT. Canon law is very clear about this. If the woman is not under any sort of censure or penalty, she must be allowed Communion at a reasonable time.

Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.
Canon 843, Section 1

As far as telling her this in front of the whole congregation: There's nothing in Church law prohibiting the priest from doing this, but it certainly seems out of keeping with his pastoral responsibilities. Even the ordinary, apparently, is obliged to warn the person before imposing a penalty (Canon 1347 section 1).
Thus:

It is not clear whether the bishop had created a general penalty of this sort. This can be discovered by inquiring at the chancery (the administrative office of the diocese).
If he had not, the priest had no authority to forbid the woman to receive Communion, and she is not in fact forbidden. One ought to report the priest's action to the bishop or his representative.
The priest was tactless in his treatment of the woman, regardless; if there is a concern over this it should be taken to the pastor of the parish (if the priest is not the pastor) or to the bishop.
She did, however, commit wrongdoing, and should go to confession. Whether this is with the priest involved or not makes no difference.