​This paper defends the claim that firm belief in divine testimony (“Catholic Faith”) is morally valuable, if the broad claims of Christian orthodoxy hold. I discuss Jonathan Kvanvig’s recent argument that Christians should not hold that salvific faith necessarily involves belief in revelation or God’s existence, because such faith is not much “worth having”, suggesting that this argument is dubious from Catholic and Protestant theological perspectives. I then examine some extant accounts of Catholic Faith’s value, conceding that Kvanvig successfully highlights their flaws. I therefore offer a novel explanation of Catholic Faith’s value, drawing on Miranda Fricker’s account of testimonial justice.

​Thomas Williams has argued that the doctrine of univocity (the thesis that God and creatures can be predicated of univocally) is true and salutary. Such a claim is frequently contested, particularly in regard to the property—if there be any such—of existence or being. Inspired by the thought of Francisco Suárez, I outline a way of understanding the thesis of the analogy of being, which avoids the criticisms levelled by Williams and others against analogy. I further suggest that the metaphysically committed version of univocal predication favoured by many analytic philosophers of religion causes difficulties for the practice of perfect being theology, which is often taken to play an important role in the construction of kataphatic philosophical theologies. My exposition of the analogy of being is, I suggest, better fitted to the practice of perfect being theology, and thus salutary for the practice of Christian natural theology.

A review of W. Matthews Grant's Free Will and God's Universal Causaility (Bloomsbury, 2019)