-Karl Rahner (SJ) has been called a post-modern modalist.
-Hans Urs Von Balthasar (SJ) has been accused of teaching Penal Substitution and universalism.
-Henri de Lubac (SJ) was forbidden to teach or publish theology for 9 years by the Jesuits because of a controversial work.
-Yves Congar (OP) was removed from teaching or publishing for a while because of his ecumenism and promotion of openness to some Protestant ideas.
All of those men were given the chance to become Cardinals (the 2nd highest office in Catholicism) and some of them took it. They have been called some of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians in the 20th century. And yet at the same time they are charged with heresy.
At first this scared and troubled me and I didn't want to read them. But then I realized this is ridiculous, these men are heroes of the faith and people are mindlessly slandering them, even Protestants read them for their brilliance (the Anglicans especially).
There are a few Orthodox Catholic theologians who as far as I've heard are completely legit, but probably more boring:
Pope Benedict XVI (obviously - he was the head of our Inquisit-I mean congregation of faith, and our Pope)
Scott Hahn and Peter Kreeft are both questioned greatly about their orthodoxy, but probably because they explain things from a Protestant framework (and possibly because Kreeft *kind of* teaches Protestant Soteriology a bit...sometimes)
What I really want to understand is Catholic soteriology, but the problem seems to be that as soon as a Catholic theologian claims something significant happened in the crucifixion he's accused of penal substitution and Protestantism.