The Vatican's denunciation of certain works by the Jesuit theologian Jon Sobrino will be widely seen as a renewal of its campaign against liberation theology. He is one of its leading exponents. Nevertheless, the terms of the latest judgement differ significantly from previous actions against this theology in two respects. First, the grounds of disapproval, likely to seem somewhat arcane to secular commentators, are not so much to do with Fr Sobrino's politics as with his ecclesiology and Christology, particularly as set forth in his two books Jesus the Liberator (1993) and Christ the Liberator (2001). As the titles indicate, he thinks the two are linked. Liberation theology has tended to equate the Church of the apostolic tradition as stated in the Creeds with "the Church of the poor", usually particularised as the poor of Latin America. While the Vatican statement in no way repudiates the "preferential option for the poor", which is one of liberation theology's most important innovations, it finds Fr Sobrino's expression of it defective. But liberation theology does not stand or fall by his exposition of it.

Secondly, although it has done so in the past with theologians it has found unacceptable, the Vatican has not ordered him to recant, or ordered his books to be withdrawn, or even tried to ban Catholics from reading them. It has simply warned the faithful that Fr Sobrino is, as it were, offside. Any further measures necessary to protect the flock from error are left to local hierarchies. This is a more mature and respectful way to treat the Church at large. There was always something distasteful about the assumption that Catholics should be stopped from reading books that were freely available.

This more grown-up way of doing business may reflect the influence of Cardinal William Levada, the new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. As an American he can be presumed to believe firmly in the civilised virtues of due process and freedom of speech, which should be interrupted only in extreme circumstances. Indeed, in comments to The Tablet about this ruling, Archbishop Patrick Kelly of Liverpool, head of the English and Welsh bishops' committee on doctrine, seemed to think that the study of Fr Sobrino's works might even be good for people, provided of course that the Vatican's misgivings about them were taken into account. This is the correct approach. Banning a book only increases its notoriety and therefore its appeal - Fr Sobrino's publishers must be fuming.

 Leaving it to local bishops to exercise their discretion as they think fit is also a more mature way of handling theological controversy, which Cardinal Levada said recently that he did not want to stifle. From the Sobrino thesis and the CDF's antithesis could come a synthesis that moves the debate on: certainly the last word has not been said about the relationship between Christ's humanity and his divinity, nor about how he understood them himself. The CDF's fear in this case seems to be that the Sobrino position, if pushed much further, could call into question the divinity of Christ altogether, at least as the Church has traditionally understood it. In steering the debate this way, rather than stopping it altogether, the Congregation has done theology a service that will, in time, bear fruit for the Church.