“Could Have” Scenario & Sovereignty

Question #2: Within a Catholic framework that affirms God’s sovereignty (cf. CCC 303), if God chooses not to create, does this imply that God “could have” created and thus had some unrealized potential, seeming to contradict divine simplicity?

Within a Catholic framework, God’s sovereignty (see CCC 303) indicates that He has absolute authority over all that exists, including the possibility of not creating anything at all. At first glance, it might appear that if God could have refrained from creating, there is a “might-have-been” scenario within God–an “unrealized potential” that would clash with the claim that God is actus purus (pure act) and thus without unactualized potency. However, classical Catholic theology resolves this by distinguishing between the eternal nature of God’s will and the contingent status of creation.


From a Catholic perspective, God’s freedom does not imply internal flux or any genuine movement from “potentiality” to “actuality” within the divine essence. Rather, God’s freedom is a reflection of His self-sufficiency and lack of any external necessity. Because God’s nature is infinitely perfect, He does not need creation to be fulfilled or enriched. Thus, the fact that He “could have” not created underscores His sovereign independence, not an unactualized potency. It simply indicates that creation is not logically or metaphysically compulsory–God’s choice to create the world was not driven by a deficit in His being.


Importantly, Catholic tradition holds that God’s will is co-eternal with His essence: there was no moment “before” creation where God deliberated. The decision to create is an eternal divine act, one that arises from the fullness of God’s being. Since God is timelessly perfect, the difference between “creating” and “not creating” does not cause an internal modification or newly actualized potency within Him. Instead, the real change occurs in the realm of created reality. If God had eternally willed not to create, that, too, would be an equally eternal expression of His free will without implying any new internal state.


Thus, the statement that God “could have” done otherwise refers to the contingency of the created order, rather than to a dormant capacity in God awaiting activation. From all eternity, God’s single, simple act either includes the free creation of the universe or does not. Hence, no contradiction arises with divine simplicity: God remains wholly actual, without any unrealized potency, while also being wholly free. He is sovereign over creation precisely because creation depends entirely on a decision that is the outflow of His eternal, unchanging, and utterly self-sufficient nature.

(see #1, #4 for more)