As far as I know, the point is that being is convertible with goodness, but only actual existence is "being" in a strict sense, while essence is only potency for being. Therefore, since nothing except God exists in virtue of its own essence, nothing except God is good in virtue of its own essence. Therefore, all created beings are good only AFTER they receive actual existence. So God is not compelled to create them, since they receive their goodness only by the fact that they are created, and their goodness is not prior to the act of creation.   

I have argued in the past the principle issue is on the strength of the PSR. I am sympathic with Katherine Roger that when you apply God's status as always doing the best, and something close to the PSR, it might follow God could have only created this world. I don't see an issue with this with regards to the contingency argument as I have never framed the argument around modality. The ability to create other things would still be an active power of God's as possible essences are real imitations of God, and hence it is meaningful to mention these as being able to be uttered in logically consistent ways. In a strict sense nothing is necessitating God and He is only acting out of "moral necessity" to quote Clarke, not strict logical necessity. While this view was made famous by rationalists, it was implicit even in Augustine. So I don't see this as a big issue. God is simply all wise and His wisdom reflects His ability to choose best. There are loads of options to posit as the reason for creation , just as an example note Augustine's argument that this world contains the perfect number of several classes of agents. This doesn't have to necessarily be plausible but it shows there can be reasons and that the arguments lodged against a BoaPW are not conclusive. Nothing external is coercing Him and God is simply creating because He wishes to, and God knowing His glory knows the best way to reflect it, meaning perfecting things with goods fitting their being. What I would say to someone who doesn't want to accept this counter intuitive conclusion (which I don't necessarily accept mind you) is that this can be read as a negative predicate of God and all we are able to intuit is that God is not coerced, and perhaps His freedom consists in this. With regards to God making creatures that have open options, and given proportionate Causality, so must God, it really depends on how you define such a notion. Anselm's definition of freedom "The ability to keep rectitude of the will for it's own sake" , allows for open options with regards to  human creatures, while God and the good angels aren't able to not hold on to what the good have been given (obvious reasons for God not being able to do this of course). Since options have some normitivity in them, God and  human agents still act on the same sorts of things, the difference being God is acting on His essence which is the Good. I think with more modern conditions of freedom that there are good reasons for denying the PAP, and hence I don't think this option is a good proves much. With this removed we can proceed to argue that God and man both share many similar features and there is a level of Univocity here, and that this perfection is not in creatures and lacking in God.

Just my thoughts

Have a nice day everyone and God bless you all,

Cameron

PS, sorry to anyone I have not replied to, just saw this and thought I would answer as it is something relevant to my research at the moment.

Written, no. I have been looking into various solutions (or people biting the bullet) to this problem for a while. Someone I am acquainted with wrote a work on this a while back. Need to find it.

Since it isn't letting me edit, acquainted might be a stretch. He is in a Facebook group with me lol. But that is the most comprehensive treatment of the problem I have seen. Stephen J Duby in his book Divine Simplicity  seems to be the most cited treatment of it. From what I have seen though, while it is possible to have some form of perhaps alternative possibility's with regards to freedom, accepting a strong version of the PSR makes it tougher.

Sorry if my messages are cryptic, I am not able to edit them for some reason.