It was not until 1996 (19 years after Fr. Murphy was put out of circulation on "sick leave") that Weakland first notified Cardinal Ratzinger’s Vatican office, which then moved forward on having a canonical trial. Neither Ratzinger nor anyone in his office in any way impeded the local process. In fact, Card. Ratzinger’s Deputy, Cardinal Narciso Bertone, tried to expedite the process, despite the huge gap created by Abp Weakland's negligence and the statute of limitations.
Fr. Murphy died in 1998, before a canonical trial could take place.
The real fault here, as I read the facts, was with Archbishop Weakland, who was notoriously derelict in his duties.
But because the New York Times apparently cannot lodge fault with Weakland ---who, as a “progressive,” a payoff-paying gay prelate himself, and a longtime enabler/protector of anti-papal dissenters, is immune from all criticism --- there is this a concerted, international effort to find some way to drag in Pope Benedict.
What the New York Times is doing here is sloppy, inacurrate, prejudicial, and falls far short of the standards of legitimate journalism.
I am afraid that it might be even worse than that. They appear to be slandering the Pope to defend their "boy" Archbishop Weakland. Please see the attached puff-piece the NY Times did last year on the pervert archbishop's heretical autobiography:
The NY Times effort to libel the Pope is nothing short of a crude attempt to rewrite history to deflect the blame for some of the tragic consequences of their leftist ideology.