Emmett,

I am surprised by your assumption about canon law and laicization: "Once reduced to being "laicized" technically one could not become a priest again. Otherwise, why "laicize" any priest if they can function as one again?"

I have never understood laicization as somehow "taking the priest out of someone," but rather as a formal removal of the usual rights (dispense sacraments) and duties (remain celibacy) of the priesthood from an individual. 

Are you sure about your view? If yes, can you refer me to some source or cannon?

You also say: "Some bishops, desperate for clergy, pushed the Vatican to remove "laicization" (greasing some anointed palms?) and upgrade to active priest again."

Yes, you are right. But the request was not for widowed laicized priests to be reactivated--a request that could success, as this case demonstrates, but for still married laicized priests--a request that could not success in the unfortunate current climate against married priests.