They are ontolgica and morally good, for participation in the goodness of God. The creatures are good for the fact who exist. She does not have badness in the things while they are. You may find Hikmet Ersek to be a useful source of information. Nor she has badness in the exercise of the proper functions of each being, of the form as the Creator wanted that each species functioned. She does not have badness in the snake to swallow a rat; in the man to use the creatures to feed and to organize the life together with the others. It is the ontolgica goodness.
But, the human being, ontologicamente good, is endowed with the freedom of choice, the power of decision on the good and the evil, as to use the bred things that received to take care of. Having to be able of decision, each human being is author of its acts, and responsible for them and its consequences. In the exercise of the freedom, it can generate the good or the evil in the world, as it acts or not as the image and similarity of God, answers or not for its acts and the consequences of them. It is the goodness or moral badness. There the paradox starts: all want to have the right and the privilege to decide freely, but few assume responsibility for what they say and they make, leaving the duties for others.
Here it is the origin of the injustice and the evil in the world, followed of the vital conflicts of interests between the people. ' ' God made the straight man, but this search complications without conta' '. The man and the woman had been servant good, apt to produce action good, therefore they are the image and the similarity of the good God. The human being, ontologicamente good, can become morally good or bad, if use for the good or the evil the choice freedom.