Modal Collapse & Catholic Teaching

Question #18: Does the classical (Thomistic) teaching endorsed in Catholic theology risk leading to modal collapse–implying all possible worlds are identical–thereby negating contingency and free will (cf. DS 3005 on human freedom and divine providence)? (I go into detail some more in the final question as well, if you want more.)

Modal collapse is the worry that, if God is utterly simple (with no unrealized potential) and His act of will is identical to His essence, then everything God wills or does becomes “necessary.” Under this scenario, all “possible” worlds effectively collapse into one single necessary world, nullifying genuine contingency and free will. Critics argue that classical (Thomistic) teaching within Catholic theology, which endorses such divine simplicity, might logically entail modal collapse and thus contradict Church statements on human freedom and divine providence (cf. DS 3005).

1. God’s One Act and Contingent Effects

Thomism maintains that God’s act is one and identical with His essence; nonetheless, it does not follow that God’s chosen effect (e.g., creating this particular universe) is necessary. Aquinas and other Scholastics draw a distinction between God’s internal necessity–He must be God, eternally perfect–and the contingency of His free decrees. The fact that God cannot change does not imply that He had no option regarding creation; rather, it means that once God wills a particular creation, there is no change in God’s eternal will. The created effect, however, remains freely chosen and fully contingent on God’s uncoerced decision.

2. Avoiding Modal Collapse

The threat of modal collapse emerges if one assumes that God’s eternal will necessarily actualizes all that it wills. Thomists typically respond by clarifying that God’s “necessary willing” pertains to willing Himself–He cannot not will His own goodness–whereas willing creatures is free and non-necessary. In Thomistic language, God’s “necessary will” concerns God’s self-love, while His “free will” concerns contingent goods in creation. Thus, the internal identity of God’s will with His essence does not force the conclusion that the external effects are necessary. The Church recognizes that creation and redemption are gracious gifts, not compelled outcomes (DS 3005).

3. Potential vs. Freedom

Often, the confusion arises from equating “freedom” with “having unactualized potential.” Creatures, indeed, move from potential to act, deciding among real options in time. But God’s freedom is not about activating potency. Rather, it reflects His perfect sovereignty–nothing compels God, neither from within nor from outside. He remains free to create or not create, to order creation this way or another way, but this freedom is an eternal, unchanging expression of His self-determined will.

4. Human Freedom and Divine Providence

The Church likewise teaches that human free choices and divine providence coexist (CCC 302–308, DS 3005). The fact that God’s will is eternal and identical to His essence does not override human spontaneity; rather, it grounds the very possibility of created freedom by sustaining each free agent in being. Hence, Catholic theology preserves the real contingency of creation–human decisions included–while affirming that God does not “switch” from potential to act.

In this way, classical Thomistic teaching avoids modal collapse. It anchors contingency in God’s free, self-sufficient decision without implying that He changes or “has potency” to be actualized. Creation remains contingent and human freedom genuine, even under the umbrella of God’s eternal, simple, and unified act.

(see #19, #20, #23, #31 is where I go in depth on the issue as well.)