Roger Haight has been ordered not to teach on Christology or systematic theology by the CDF, a decision some time in coming and preceded by a number of previous statements and examinations. It seems that a committee of three American Jesuits, as yet unnamed, will move forward with further investigation of Haight's work in order to get this whole thing sorted out. The controversy primarily concerns his book, Jesus Symbol of God.
Carl Olson over at Ignatius Scoop offers a decent commentary on another commentary on the issue. Couched in a comparison between Haight and the late Richard John Neuhaus, I don't agree with everything Olson says (I think the Ignatius blog can be rather rigidly neo-conservative/culture-war-apologist), but most of the critique of Haight and some of the defense of Neuhaus is praiseworthy. All of it is worth reading.
The tired idea that ecclesiastical censure is a threat to good scholarly work has surrounded the Haight investigation over the past few years. While in certain instances such discipline certainly does restrain legitimate work, ecclesiastical ruling in itself is simply the hierarchical counterpart to what peer-review is in a system of scholarly work not restricted methodologically by authoritative institutional strictures. When inquiry is determined by particular norms, structures of reinforcement of those norms do not harm inquiry, but rather further it. And while such reinforcement can be too overzealous, this is a particular rather than systemic shortcoming. Such shortcomings are absent, however, from the particular case of Haight; the investigation has been going on for some time and is quite clear, accommodating, and non-judgmental in its treatment. One could only hope for as careful attention as Haight has received.
On Neuhaus, I think that it's quite right to point out- as Olson has done- that a political critique of the man should not cloud his underlying Catholicism or the importance of his work for the faith. The picture of John Courtney Murray as some brave democratic prophet compared to Neuhaus as the Establishment's yes-man is a rather cheap shot (and a rather odd one, for commentary which also tries to acknowledge liberation theology against Neuhaus). But Olson, if not in this particular post, does in a number of other places pursue quite the same line of argument, simply in the opposite direction. If Neuhaus' ministry and scholarship can't be dismissed because of its political commitments, neither can it be beatified because of them.
Here is a good piece remembering Neuhaus- a little more balanced, with a little less hagiography than Ignatius Press.
Edit: An old post from Flying Farther discusses Haight's Christology, with which I'm personally not very familiar. (hence my attempts to not nail down anything particular about the case of Haight except my general impression of the tenor of the Vatican's response)