The point being that excommunication is intended to bring a perp to repentance, rather than to nail him or her for previous errant behavior.
Bears repeating.
There is also the punishment of "defrocking," which would be more appropriate for a priest convicted of sexual molestation of a minor. The priest would be laicized and prevented from acting publicly as a priest.
It sounds as if this priest was already laicized, but I don't know.
If I remember correctly, I think that Bishop Olmsted (just after having arrived) had to do something when the lawsuits were coming out, sort of put Fr. Fushek on "leave of absence" from St. Timothy's parish, however, I think Fr. Fushek officially resigned as pastor from the parish on his own several weeks later. Then he later "resigned" from the Church (diocese) on his own as he started doing the Praise and Worship Center thingy. At least that was his justification for being able to do it and remain Catholic. He has always been a "charismatic" type priest in both senses of the word and many people "follow" him and hang on his every word when he preaches. Fortunately, his preaching has always been sound Catholic doctrine (big on Pope JP II, pro life, the proper sexual ethics of the Church, etc.), though the liturgical actions of the parish were of the horrid kind found throughout the Church over the past 40 or so years. Life Teen says it all.
This has been ongoing for several years now and you can see the problem with it - and the reason Bishop Olmsted had to act. A priest cannot just "resign" his vows (notably obedience) in the priesthood. Even if properly laicized, a priest is still subject to the laws of the Church and particularly those laws that deal with laicized priests (they are no longer allowed to officially preach, or teach in seminaries, etc.) Nothing happens quickly from a legal standpoint in the Church and I'm sure there is nothing sudden about the final act of excommunication coming from the bishop.
Prayers for these two Priests, that they return back to full unity in the Church.
Regarding the lawsuits (this whole situation is weird), I would note to everybody that all counts are misdemeanors. I have not heard anything about Fr. Fushek having sex with underage or legal age persons. Because of his high profile in the Diocese of Phoenix for about 15-20 or so years, if there were any acts of this nature, it would have come out years ago. I am not defending him here, nor implying that I don't believe that he has problems in the sexual arena, particularly homosexuality. There has been clear evidence over the past 4-6 years that he has acted improperly and that he needs help. The evidence suggests that he knows it as well, but also, that he has never strayed into that explicit territory of sinful acts.