I am not sure if I posted it in this article or another but there is a good article on this case at Bishop Accountablity that gives a better timeline of the events.
Keep in mind the incidents were reported 20-30 years after they happened. Around 1974 the priest was told to discontinue public ministry (I forget if this was only that involving children).
In 1994 the Diocese of Milwaukee found out the priest was continuing public ministry outside of the Diocese. It was then that the letter was sent to the Vatican requesting the defrocking.
By that time no allegations had been made in over 20 years. The priest was very ill. The civil authorities had never brought any charges against the priest. They made this decision after conducting their own investigation.
Weakland could have recalled Murphy to the Diocese and restricted his activities at any time. The letter to the Vatican was CYA in response to criticism levied against Weakland and other Mil. bishops in their handling of the accusations.
We are talking about appx 40 years after the alleged abuse took place.
The specific case mentioned in this article took place 20 years late - allegations in 1974, review of the case in 1996. 22 is not 40, but 40 is not too long for a serious and thorough investigation of rape.
The future Pope COULD have written, “There is a cancer in the Priesthood, and it is the duty of every Priest to root it out. Every case will be investigated. If there is sufficient evidence a crime may have been committed, the case will be turned over to the civil authorities, and a dual investigation will be pursued. For the Glory of God, it may be necessary to err, if error occurs, on the side of defrocking Priests without the same level of evidence required for a criminal civil prosecution. Anyone who fails to cooperate with an investigation does so under threat of excommunication.”
Instead, he wrote to keep everything secret, and any leaking of information would be grounds for excommunication.
The Pope screwed up. Big time.