Introduction to the Principle of Relationality in Catholic Thought

To Be Is to Be Given: Relationality in Catholic Theology

Introduction and Thesis Formation

This paper sets out to investigate whether Catholic theology reveals a recurring, data‑driven pattern-a hermeneutical key if you will-centered on relationality. Rather than beginning dogmatically by asserting that “to be is to be given; to exist is to be self given relationally,” we show, through a careful analysis of Scripture, patristic writings, scholastic treatises, and contemporary reflections, that a compelling pattern emerges. Repeated declarations such as “God is love” (1 John 4:8, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition) and the recurring emphasis on divine self‑donation by figures such as Augustine, Aquinas, and Ratzinger suggest that being itself is fundamentally relational. Please note, this paper is a precursor to the second version of this paper, found here: The Principle of Relationality in Catholic Thought: – RobertDryer. This paper establishes the conditions for that paper to make its argument. A lot of the same resources used in that piece are here. The key difference being, this piece is more academic and conservative, establishing the reasonableness of the principle, while the version two sets out to defend the principle directly and explicate it. There’s actually a part 3 to this series where everything is fully synthesized together, and you can read that here: The Principle of Relationality – A Theological Synthesis on the Relational Nature of God – RobertDryer … This paper is meant to stand on its own, however, so please enjoy…

In what follows, we will trace two distinct trajectories in Catholic thought-the divine realm and the creaturely realm-and demonstrate how they converge into a unified principle. Ultimately, we shall synthesize these findings into a formulation that captures this recurrent pattern while critically assessing its explanatory power and limits. We also indicate promising avenues for future research aimed at refining and perhaps doctrinally expanding this principle.

After establishing our thesis, the paper now turns to an examination of the divine trajectory. Before proceeding, it is important to acknowledge that some scholars challenge the idea of inherent relationality in God, arguing that divine immutability precludes any dynamic self‑communication. However, as we shall see, the traditional sources reveal that even within the framework of divine simplicity, relationality is not only compatible but central to understanding God’s nature.

I. The Divine Trajectory

The divine realm offers a wealth of evidence that relationality is not an accidental feature of God but the very essence of the divine nature. Scripture and tradition repeatedly affirm that God’s nature is expressed in acts of self‑communication. For example, the New Testament boldly declares, “God is love” (1 John 4:8, RSVCE). This simple, yet profound, statement goes beyond describing an attribute; it encapsulates the very life of God as a being who continually gives Himself.

In the doctrine of the Trinity, the dynamic of self‑donation is seen most clearly. Here, the three divine Persons are engaged in an eternal, reciprocal act of self‑gift. Joseph Ratzinger’s observation that “In God, person means relation…” (Ratzinger, “Concerning the Notion of Person in Theology,” Communio 17, no. 3 [1990]: 444) reveals that the very concept of personhood within the divine nature is inseparable from the idea of relationality. This insight is fundamental: if the very personhood of God is defined by relation, then the mystery of the Trinity is inherently communal rather than isolated.

The Church Fathers underscore this vision. Augustine proclaims,

“God is love. Whoever, therefore, loves the brethren, loves God; for God is love.”
— Augustine, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Homily 7, in Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, First Series, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 497.

Augustine’s teaching reinforces that the God of Scripture is not a solitary, impassive being but one who perpetually exchanges love within Himself. This internal exchange is not accidental; it is constitutive of the divine essence. The Catechism of the Catholic Church further affirms this understanding by stating that

“God himself is an eternal exchange of love, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and he has destined us to share in that exchange.”
— Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), §221.

The language of “exchange” and “self‑donation” is therefore not peripheral but central to our understanding of the Trinity. Transitioning smoothly, Gregory of Nazianzus provides vivid imagery in his Oration 40.41:

“No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the One.”
— Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 40.41, in Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 7, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 375.

This striking metaphor encapsulates the dynamic tension between distinction and unity in the Godhead. Although the three Persons remain distinct, their identity is co‑extensive with the one divine essence; indeed, their very differentiation is an expression of the self‑communicative life of God.

Thomas Aquinas further develops this theme in the Summa Theologica. He states:

“Relation is not accidental but subsistent…thus the Fatherhood in God is identical with God’s essence.”
— Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 28, a. 2, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947).

Aquinas’s formulation is crucial: it asserts that the relation between the divine Persons is not an external feature added to the divine essence but is intrinsic to it. Even as Aquinas maintains the absolute simplicity and immutability of God—a point echoed by the Fourth Lateran Council’s emphatic declaration—

“We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, Father, Son and Holy Ghost; three persons indeed, but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature.”
— Fourth Lateran Council (1215), Canon 1, in Medieval Sourcebook: Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV 1215, accessed March 7, 2025, https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran4.asp—

the dynamic self‑donative life of the Trinity coexists with divine simplicity. Critics might argue that such dynamism conflicts with immutability, yet the tradition shows that this tension is not a flaw but a profound mystery that invites deeper reflection.

The Exodus narrative adds further depth. When God reveals Himself to Moses as “I AM” (Exodus 3:14, RSVCE), this seemingly simple declaration conveys both divine immutability and an openness to relationship. In declaring “I AM,” God reveals His identity while simultaneously inviting a form of internal, self‑donative communication.

To underscore the synthesis of these ideas, consider the key phrase “Being as Communion” coined by John D. Zizioulas:

“Being as Communion.”
— John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985).

This formulation reinforces that the divine life is not static or isolated but is defined by a constant, reciprocal exchange—a foundational insight that will later be integrated with the perspectives of Augustine, Aquinas, and contemporary theologians.

In summary, the divine trajectory establishes that relationality is woven into the very fabric of the divine nature. Whether through the self‑communicative language of the Trinity, the mutual illumination found in patristic expositions, or the scholastic affirmations of intrinsic relation, the evidence unambiguously points to a God defined by self‑donative relationality. This dynamic, far from being an afterthought, lies at the core of the divine mystery, expressing both the unity and diversity of the Godhead—and setting the stage for a broader philosophical synthesis to come.

II. The Creaturely Trajectory

If the divine nature is fundamentally self donative and relational, then it follows that human beings—created in the image of this God—share in that relational capacity. Transitioning from the divine realm to the human sphere, the creaturely trajectory of Catholic thought emphasizes that human identity is deeply rooted in the capacity to participate in divine self donation. Critics might suggest that human relationality is merely a sociocultural construct rather than an intrinsic feature of the imago Dei; however, the tradition consistently asserts that our very nature reflects a Creator whose self gift is the hallmark of existence. The creation narrative in Genesis is a primary source for this insight. As the text declares:

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
— Genesis 1:27 (RSVCE).

This passage affirms that humanity is designed to mirror the relationality of God; our very being is shaped by the self gift of our Creator. From the earliest biblical accounts, human existence is presented not as an isolated state but as one intrinsically connected to the divine. Our capacity for relationship is not an accidental by product of evolution or a mere social convenience—it is the signature of our creation in the image of a relational God.

A clear transition is found in the ecclesial teaching of the Second Vatican Council. Gaudium et Spes underscores this truth by asserting that

“Man…cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.”
— Gaudium et Spes, §24.

In this declaration, the Council identifies self donation as the path to human fulfillment. The notion that our identity and wholeness are found in the act of giving oneself is central to Catholic anthropology. Augustine echoes this sentiment when he reiterates that

Here, the call to love one’s neighbor is not merely an ethical injunction—it is an invitation to participate in the divine life. Human ethical responsibility is rooted in our ability to exchange self gift, mirroring the eternal exchange that defines the Godhead.

Contemporary theological reflection deepens this perspective. Joseph Ratzinger, in his work Introduction to Christianity, emphasizes that

“Human beings are relational, and they possess their lives – themselves – only by way of relationship. I alone am not myself, but only in and with you am I myself. To be truly as human being means to be related in love, to be of and for…”
— Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, quoted in Joseph DiLauro, “Liturgy and Relational Ontology in the Theology of Joseph Ratzinger” (Master’s thesis, University of Scranton, 2010), 22.

Ratzinger’s reflection captures the essence of human identity: our selfhood is constituted in relation to others. We become fully ourselves only through the act of giving and receiving love—a process that mirrors divine self donation. This model of relationality not only informs personal identity but also serves as a normative guide for ethical life.

Moreover, the natural world offers additional evidence for this relational paradigm. Bonaventure, in his contemplative treatise The Journey of the Mind into God, observes that

“All creatures flow forth from God, reflecting His relational goodness.”
— Bonaventure, The Journey of the Mind into God, trans. Philotheus Boehner (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993), II.8.

Bonaventure’s insight suggests that the relational order of creation is not confined to human society but is a universal mark of God’s creative act. Every aspect of nature—its interdependencies, cycles, and mutual sustainment—bears the imprint of a Creator whose self donative love extends to all that exists.

A further transition occurs in the life of the Church, where the creaturely trajectory is exemplified in sacramental practice. The Eucharist, for instance, is celebrated not as a static ritual but as “the source and summit of the Christian life.” The Catechism explains that in the Eucharist

“the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself” is present, and in partaking of this mystery, believers enter into the divine self communication.
— Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1324; see also the affirmation in §221 regarding divine self donation.

In the celebration of the Eucharist, the faithful are invited to participate in the very life of Christ—a participation that reflects the self donative nature of God. Through the sacrament, the relational order is both affirmed and enacted, providing a concrete model of how human beings are to live in communion with one another and with God.

To illustrate this concept in a comprehensive manner, consider an analogy in which creation is likened to a womb within the divine embrace. Just as a womb provides a nurturing, relational context for life without being conflated with the life it nurtures, the world serves as the relational environment in which human beings exist, develop, and receive the gift of being. In this vivid metaphor, the divine embrace functions as both the origin and the sustaining force, enveloping creation with boundless love and care. It underscores that, just as the nurturing environment of a womb ensures continuous growth and vitality for the life it supports, so too does God’s intimate self‑donative relationship perpetually renew and sustain all of creation. Crucially, the analogy preserves the clear distinction between Creator and creation: while creation exists within the nurturing context provided by God, it remains distinct from the infinite, self‑subsistent source of that nurturing love. This comprehensive analogy encapsulates the relational model by demonstrating that humanity’s existence is not self‑generated or isolated but is continually given relationally, sustained by the divine embrace.

Thus, the creaturely trajectory demonstrates that human identity and ethical responsibility are deeply rooted in the capacity to participate in divine self donation. The scriptural mandate in Genesis, the ecclesial teaching of Gaudium et Spes, the reflective insights of Augustine and Ratzinger, and the sacramental celebration of the Eucharist all converge on a single point: that existence itself is defined by the act of being given. Our ability to love and to be loved, to exchange gifts of self commitment and self sacrifice, is not only a reflection of our divine origin but also the means by which we attain our fullest potential as human beings.

III. Synthesis of the Tradition—Establishing Relationality as a Hermeneutical Key

Having explored both the divine and creaturely trajectories, we now turn to a synthesis that reveals how these two streams converge into a clear, recurring theme in Catholic thought. The evidence from Scripture, the Church Fathers, and the scholastics consistently points toward a relational vision of being. Although some scholars have offered alternative hermeneutics emphasizing individual autonomy, the cumulative theological witness insists that self‑donative relationality is the foundation of both divine mystery and human existence.

From the creation narrative in Genesis to the sacramental theology of the Church, self‑donative language recurs time and again. As Augustine proclaims,

“God is love. Whoever, therefore, loves the brethren, loves God; for God is love.”
— Augustine, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Homily 7, in Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, First Series, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 497,

and as the Catechism declares,

These formulations are not isolated theological statements; they form a coherent pattern that reveals the very structure of reality as seen by Catholic theology. The patristic and scholastic traditions reinforce this view with remarkable consistency. Gregory of Nazianzus’s vivid imagery—

demonstrates that the internal life of God is one of dynamic, mutual self donation.

Thomas Aquinas further underpins this synthesis by asserting that

“Relation is not accidental but subsistent…thus the Fatherhood in God is identical with God’s essence.”
— Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 28, a. 2, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947).

These assertions leave little doubt: the relational model is embedded in the very nature of the divine, and its echo is found in human existence as well. In the creaturely realm, the mandate to “be created in the image of God” (Genesis 1:27, RSVCE) carries with it an implicit call to live out a life of self donation—a life in which one’s identity is formed and sustained through loving relationships.

Contemporary theological voices, such as Joseph Ratzinger’s observation that

“Human beings are relational, and they possess their lives – themselves – only by way of relationship. I alone am not myself, but only in and with you am I myself. To be truly as human being means to be related in love, to be of and for…”
— Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, quoted in DiLauro, “Liturgy and Relational Ontology in the Theology of Joseph Ratzinger” (Master’s thesis, University of Scranton, 2010), 22,

cement the idea that our selfhood is defined by participation in a broader relational order—mirroring the dynamic self‑communication of the Godhead.

An additional expression of this theme is found in the evocative phrase “Being as Communion,” coined by John D. Zizioulas:

“Being as Communion.”
— Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985).

This formulation encapsulates the notion that true being is realized only within the context of relationship—a concept that bridges the divine and creaturely orders. In synthesizing these insights, we arrive at a powerful hermeneutical key: the formulation “to be is to be given; to exist is to be self given relationally” is not merely a slogan but the necessary outcome of a cumulative theological witness. It emerges from the careful reading of Scripture, the reflective insights of the Church Fathers, the systematic rigor of the scholastics, and the dynamic reinterpretations of contemporary theology. While alternative interpretations exist, the integrated view remains compelling in light of the tradition’s consistency.

IV. Limits of Donation (Divine) and Gift (Creature Participation) – Relationality as Principle

While the preceding sections have established that relationality is a pervasive and unifying theme in Catholic theology, it is equally important to examine the limits of this model. Both in the divine and creaturely realms, the principle of self donation encounters challenges that invite critical scrutiny. In the divine realm, the principle explains much about the nature of the Trinity, yet certain tensions persist.

Aquinas teaches that

“Relation is not accidental but subsistent…thus the Fatherhood in God is identical with God’s essence.”
— Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 28, a. 2 (1947).

Yet, despite the clarity of this assertion, the dynamic expression of self donation raises questions about how the relational dynamism of the Trinity can coexist with the doctrine that

“God is altogether immutable… it is impossible for God to change in any way.”
— Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 9, a. 1.

On the one hand, the self‑communicative life of the Godhead is an expression of relationality; on the other, God’s immutability appears to demand a static, unchanging nature. This apparent paradox is not resolved by a simple recourse to mystery but invites a deeper reflection on the nature of divine simplicity. Critics might argue that emphasizing relationality risks undermining the classical doctrine of immutability; however, the tension itself serves as a constant reminder that human language and conceptual frameworks are inherently limited in articulating the fullness of God’s nature.

The Exodus narrative adds another layer of complexity. The declaration “I AM” (Exodus 3:14, RSVCE) conveys an unchanging identity, yet it has also been interpreted as indicating an openness to relationship. Moreover, the Catechism’s assertion that

“God himself is an eternal exchange of love, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and he has destined us to share in that exchange”
— Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), §221

underscores that the mystery of divine self communication remains ineffable. The language of self donation is meant to capture the inner life of God, yet it inevitably confronts the limitations of human thought. These limitations point to an aspect of the divine that “escapes full articulation” and remains only partially grasped by our finite intellect.

In the creaturely realm, the model of relationality provides a compelling account of human identity and ethical responsibility. The scriptural mandate in Genesis, the ecclesial teaching of Gaudium et Spes, and the sacramental theology of the Church all affirm that human beings are created for relationship. Yet human sin, the complexities of free will, and the inescapable limitations of finitude introduce significant challenges. Gaudium et Spes asserts that

“Man cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.”
— Gaudium et Spes, §24.

This statement encapsulates an ideal that, while normatively powerful, often collides with the messy realities of human existence. The Eucharist, celebrated as “the source and summit of the Christian life” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1324), provides a model of relationality in its most consummate form. Yet, even in this sacramental act, the participation of believers is continually marred by human imperfection. The ideal of self donation in human relationships remains aspirational—a normative standard that is always partially realized, never fully actualized.

Ratzinger’s observation that

“Human beings are relational, and they possess their lives – themselves – only by way of relationship…”
— Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, quoted in DiLauro (2010), 22

captures this ideal beautifully. However, the tension between the ideal of complete self‑gift and the realities of human relational failure remains a persistent challenge. In practical terms, while the model of relationality provides a robust framework for understanding human dignity and ethical responsibility, it does not entirely account for the disruptions caused by sin or the limitations imposed by human free will.

Thus, the limits of the relational model are not deficiencies but natural boundaries where the finite meets the infinite. In the divine realm, these boundaries are marked by the tension between dynamic relationality and immutable simplicity; in the creaturely realm, they appear in the gap between the ideal of complete self donation and the often fragmented reality of human existence. Recognizing these limits not only refines our understanding but also highlights fertile ground for further inquiry and potential doctrinal expansion.

V. Philosophical Synthesis – Integrating Benovsky, Marion, and Aquinas

Building upon the synthesized tradition and the critical examination of limits presented earlier, we now turn to an in‐depth philosophical synthesis that integrates the insights of three key thinkers: Jiri Benovsky, Jean‑Luc Marion, and Thomas Aquinas. This section not only reinforces the robust explanatory power of the relationality principle but also critically examines how these perspectives interlock to overcome inherent limits.

To begin with, Jiri Benovsky’s work on metaphysical primitives provides a crucial methodological underpinning for our model. Benovsky argues that primitives are introduced “to put an end to a metaphysical explanatory regress… precisely introduced to provide explanation.” He continues by asserting that

“primitives are… the theoretical posits we need, precisely because they provide us with the explanatory power required to make sense of otherwise mysterious or paradoxical aspects of reality.”
— Benovsky, “Primitives,” 231.

This analysis suggests that certain foundational elements must be accepted as irreducible for any coherent theory of being. In our relational model, the act of self donation functions as one such primitive—a basic, unanalysable fact that stops an infinite regress of explanation. While some might critique the use of primitives as merely a convenient stopping point, Benovsky’s reflections indicate that although differences between primitives may be functional, their overall role is identical: to provide the conceptual halting mechanism necessary for a comprehensive theory. This insight lends significant theoretical weight to our contention that self‑donative relationality is not a derivative or secondary concept but a fundamental explanatory mechanism underlying both divine and human existence.

Complementing this perspective, Jean‑Luc Marion offers a dynamic, phenomenological account of givenness that enriches our synthesis. Marion asserts that

“Absolute givenness is an ultimate term. […] On the other hand, denying in general the givenness of self means denying the ultimate norm, the fundamental norm that gives any meaning to fundamental knowledge.”
— Marion, Marquette Lecture on Hermeneutics (2002), p. 12.

For Marion, givenness is not reducible to a simple causal process; rather, it is the foundational condition for all understanding. He further explains that

“The given shows itself only in its reflection, in its reflexive return, in short in the response of the ‘adonné,’ who sees it, but only as it receives itself from this given.”
— Marion, Marquette Lecture on Hermeneutics (2002), p. 18.

This phenomenological insight emphasizes that the full reality of any phenomenon—including divine self donation—is realized only in the act of reception. In other words, self‑donative relationality is not a static property but a dynamic process unfolding in the interplay between what is given and what receives that givenness. Marion’s provocative inquiry—“But does givenness always, and even ever, give (and claim to give) such an object of univocal and specific meaning? Is givenness identical to the efficient causality that produces a univocal object?” (Marion, Marquette Lecture on Hermeneutics, 2002, p. 24)—challenges us to consider the limits of self donation as a process that, while fundamental, may never yield a final or complete object of knowledge. Critics might question whether this ongoing process risks rendering the concept too indeterminate; however, Marion’s reflections compel us to accept that the relational process is inherently dynamic and continually open to reinterpretation.

Finally, Thomas Aquinas’s corrective realism further anchors our synthesis within the established Catholic metaphysical tradition. Aquinas famously asserts that

“In God, relation is not accidental but subsistent… thus the Fatherhood in God is identical with God’s essence.”
— Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 28, a. 2 (1947).

Aquinas’s broader framework also maintains that

“Universals exist within particulars, abstracted by the intellect, having real foundation in things themselves.”
— Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 85, a. 1.

This realist grounding is vital because it assures us that the dynamic model of self‑donative relationality is not merely a nominal or abstract convention but is deeply embedded in the ontological structure of reality. Although some might contend that Aquinas’s emphasis on the real foundation of universals limits the flexibility of relational interpretations, his insistence ultimately reinforces that relationality—as manifested in the self‑communicative life of the Trinity and in human ethical existence—has an objective basis in the order of being itself.

Integrating these three perspectives, we arrive at a comprehensive synthesis. Benovsky’s insights establish that certain elements must be taken as irreducible primitives, with the act of self donation serving as one such primitive. Marion’s phenomenology teaches us that the full meaning of self donation emerges only in its reception—only when the given is taken up by a subject does it reveal its ultimate significance. And Aquinas provides the metaphysical framework that shows how relationality is rooted in the very nature of being itself. Together, these thinkers enrich our understanding by demonstrating that the recurring pattern of relationality—expressed as self donation in both the divine and creaturely realms—is not an arbitrary or contingent idea but the necessary outcome of a rigorous theological and philosophical analysis.

Additional support for this integrated synthesis comes from other expressions within the tradition. For example, Jean‑Luc Marion’s succinct statement,

“What shows itself first gives itself,”
— Marion, Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness (2002), 5,

reinforces the dynamic and self‑revelatory nature of relationality. This idea—that the process of self donation is itself a moment of revelation—resonates with the patristic vision and aligns with the scholastic insistence on the subsistent nature of divine relation. In this way, the synthesis not only confirms the centrality of relationality in Catholic thought but also provides a robust framework for further philosophical analysis. Moreover, by addressing potential critiques regarding the indeterminacy of process and the tension between static metaphysics and dynamic relationality, our synthesis invites future researchers to refine and expand the model as needed.

VI. Testing Explanatory Power and Identifying Further Limits

With our integrated framework in place, we now turn to a critical evaluation of the explanatory scope of the relationality principle. In the divine realm, the model robustly explains the self‑communicative nature of the Trinity. As Ratzinger reminds us,

“In God, person means relation…”
— Ratzinger, “Concerning the Notion of Person in Theology,” Communio 17, no. 3 (1990): 444,

and as Aquinas states,

“Relation is not accidental but subsistent… thus the Fatherhood in God is identical with God’s essence.”
— Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 28, a. 2 (1947).

These formulations illuminate the internal dynamics of the Godhead and underscore that relationality is the very defining mark of divine existence. Yet, even as they provide significant explanatory power, certain challenges persist. For instance, the mystery encapsulated in the declaration “I AM” (Exodus 3:14, RSVCE) and the paradox of a dynamic, self‑donative Trinity coexisting with the assertion that “God is altogether immutable… it is impossible for God to change in any way” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 9, a. 1) reveal that there is an ineffable aspect of divine simplicity that escapes complete articulation. This tension invites further reflection on whether our conceptual models can ever fully encompass the radical mystery of the divine.

Karl Rahner’s observation that

“The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity… divine self‑communication reveals eternal relationality”
— Rahner, The Trinity (1970), 22,

underscores that while the relational model is deeply informative, it does not exhaust the mystery of God’s inner life. Rahner’s insight challenges us to acknowledge that even the most rigorous models must remain open to the ineffable and ever‑expansive nature of divine being.

Turning now to the creaturely realm, the relational model accounts for human dignity and moral responsibility. The scriptural mandate that “man cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself” (Gaudium et Spes, §24) reflects the idea that human fulfillment is predicated on relational self‑donation. Similarly, the celebration of the Eucharist as “the source and summit of the Christian life” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1324) provides a tangible instance of how human beings are invited to participate in the divine gift. Yet even in this normative model, the challenges of sin, free will, and finitude impose limits. The reality that

“Creatures participate in God’s being without ever becoming identical to it”
— Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 4, a. 3 (1947),

reminds us that our participation in the divine life is always partial. The dynamic process of self‑donation, while normative, remains incomplete when confronted with the disruptive effects of sin and the inherent limitations of human nature. John Paul II’s observation that

“Man cannot live without love… relational communion defines humanity”
— John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (1979), §10,

reinforces that ethical life is fundamentally relational. However, the persistent challenges posed by human imperfection mean that the relational model, as currently formulated, has clear boundaries. These boundaries, rather than undermining the model’s overall explanatory power, point to areas where further theoretical refinement is necessary. Marion’s assertion that

“Being does not precede givenness, but is given itself, or rather gives itself, according to the mode proper to givenness”
— Marion, Being Given (2002), 155,

serves as a reminder that the process of self‑donation is ongoing, always in a state of becoming yet never fully complete. In both the divine and creaturely realms, these limits are not failures of the relational model but natural markers of the intersection between the infinite and the finite. The tension between dynamic relationality and divine immutability—as well as between the ideal of self‑donation and the reality of human brokenness—therefore becomes a focal point for future research. The relational model provides a powerful hermeneutical key, but its full implications can only be realized by engaging with these limits. In this way, our analysis not only affirms the centrality of relationality in Catholic thought but also identifies promising avenues for refining the model into a more comprehensive doctrinal formulation.

Conclusion and Future Directions

In conclusion, this paper has undertaken a rigorous, data‑driven investigation into the recurring pattern of relationality in Catholic thought. By examining the divine trajectory, we have seen that the self‑donative nature of the Trinity—expressed in such declarations as “In God, person means relation” (Ratzinger, “Concerning the Notion of Person in Theology,” Communio 17, no. 3 [1990]: 444) and “Relation is not accidental but subsistent… thus the Fatherhood in God is identical with God’s essence” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 28, a. 2)—establishes that relationality is intrinsic to the divine nature. The creaturely trajectory has demonstrated that human beings, created in the image of this self‑donative God, inherit an innate capacity for self‑gift, as evidenced by the assertion that “man cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself” (Gaudium et Spes, §24) and by the normative role of the Eucharist as “the source and summit of the Christian life” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1324). Synthesizing the evidence from tradition, we have arrived at the formulation: “to be is to be given; to exist is to be self given relationally.” This hermeneutical key not only describes the mystery of the divine but also serves as a normative guide for human existence.

Yet, our critical evaluation has shown that the explanatory power of this principle is not absolute. In the divine realm, while the dynamic nature of self‑donation clarifies the internal relations of the Trinity, it does not fully resolve the tension between dynamic relationality and divine immutability. In the creaturely realm, although the model provides a robust account of human dignity and ethical responsibility, it remains challenged by the complexities of sin, free will, and finitude. The philosophical synthesis—integrating Benovsky’s notion of primitives, Marion’s phenomenology of givenness, and Aquinas’s corrective realism—offers a promising pathway for overcoming or at least better articulating these boundaries.

Looking ahead, several avenues for future research suggest themselves. One promising line of inquiry is to further engage with the contributions of thinkers like Benovsky, Marion, and Aquinas in order to refine the self‑donative model. How might a deeper exploration of primitives as problem solvers expand our understanding of divine and human relationality? Can we further reconcile the tension between the dynamic, relational life of the Trinity and the doctrine of divine immutability? And how can our understanding of human self‑donation be enriched in light of contemporary challenges such as modern ethical dilemmas and the complexities of free will?

Moreover, future studies might examine how the relationality principle interacts with other central themes in Catholic theology—such as sacramental theology, ecclesiology, and the nature of grace. For instance, the Eucharistic celebration, described as “the source and summit of the Christian life” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1324), offers a concrete site where divine self‑communication is made manifest. Further research might explore how this sacramental participation can be more fully integrated into a comprehensive model of relationality, potentially addressing some of the limits discussed herein.

Another important direction is to consider how the relationality framework can inform contemporary ethical and social challenges. As Pope Francis reminds us in Laudato Si’,

“Everything is interconnected… since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion.”
— Pope Francis, Laudato Si’, §120,

the principle of self‑donative relationality might offer a normative basis for an ethic of care that extends not only to interpersonal relationships but also to our responsibility for creation. In this way, the framework could have significant implications for modern debates in ethics, ecology, and social justice.

Ultimately, by demonstrating that Catholic theology consistently reveals a pattern of relationality that unites the divine and creaturely realms, this paper establishes a powerful hermeneutical key: “to be is to be given; to exist is to be self given relationally.” At the same time, our critical evaluation shows that while this principle offers significant explanatory power, it also encounters natural limits. These boundaries are not deficiencies but invitations for ongoing scholarly dialogue and further research. Engaging more deeply with the philosophical contributions of Benovsky, Marion, and Aquinas may ultimately transform this principle into a fully developed doctrinal framework, capable of addressing the most challenging questions of both divine mystery and human existence.

In sum, the investigation presented here has traced an analytical journey through the evidence of Catholic tradition—from the self‑communicative nature of the Trinity in the divine realm to the ethical and existential implications of self‑donation in the creaturely realm—and has synthesized this evidence into a compelling principle. This principle not only describes the mystery of the divine but also functions as a normative guide for human life, urging us to see our identity and ethical responsibility as inherently relational. While the model’s current formulation has natural boundaries, these limits point to fertile areas for further inquiry and refinement. The relational paradigm, as articulated through sacred Scripture, patristic reflection, scholastic rigor, and contemporary thought, remains a profound and dynamic framework for understanding both who we are and what it means to be truly given in relationship.

Bibliography

Aquinas, Thomas.
Summa Theologica. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947.

Augustine.
“Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Homily 7.” In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, edited by Philip Schaff. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Benovsky, Jiri.
“Primitives: Ontological and Epistemological Aspects.” In The Routledge Handbook of Metametaphysics, edited by Ricki Bliss and J.T.M. Miller. New York: Routledge, 2020.

Bonaventure.
The Journey of the Mind into God. Translated by Philotheus Boehner. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993.

Catechism of the Catholic Church.
2nd ed. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997.

DiLauro, Joseph.
“Liturgy and Relational Ontology in the Theology of Joseph Ratzinger.” Master’s thesis, University of Scranton, 2010.

Gaudium et Spes.
In Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post‑Conciliar Documents, edited by Austin Flannery, O.P. Northport, NY: Costello Publishing, 1996.

Gregory of Nazianzus.
“Oration 40.41.” In Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 7, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Marion, Jean‑Luc.
Marquette Lecture on Hermeneutics. Marquette: Marquette University Press, 2002.

Marion, Jean‑Luc.
Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002.

Pope Francis.
Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2015.

Ratzinger, Joseph.
“Concerning the Notion of Person in Theology.” Communio 17, no. 3 (1990): 444.

Rahner, Karl.
The Trinity. New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1970.

Redemptor Hominis.
By John Paul II. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1979.

The Two Popes.
Directed by Fernando Meirelles. Netflix, 2019.

Zizioulas, John D.
Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.

The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition.
(Biblical texts are typically cited in the text; if a bibliography entry is desired, include publication details according to the edition you are using.)