The Principle of Relationality in Catholic Thought:

Exploring the Limits of Gift and Communion

Abstract

“To be is to be given; to exist is to be self‑given relationally.” This study examines the coherence and compatibility of a relational ontology—one in which existence is fundamentally defined by an act of self‑donation—with core Catholic doctrines. It addresses how such an ontology harmonizes with essential teachings on divine aseity, immutability, and divine simplicity, as well as with the crucial Creator–creature distinction. Methodologically, the paper synthesizes authoritative sources from the Catholic tradition, including the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Sacred Scripture, the Denzinger compendium of doctrinal teachings, and the writings of the Doctors of the Church, alongside contemporary phenomenological insights, notably those of Jean‑Luc Marion. In conclusion, the study delineates precise doctrinal boundaries, demonstrating that when relationality is rigorously and clearly articulated, it not only remains consistent with but also enriches Catholic theology.

Introduction

At the heart of Catholic metaphysics lies a profound insight about being: *“To be is to be given; to exist is to be self‑given relationally.”*¹ This central thesis encapsulates the understanding that existence is not a solitary, self‑contained phenomenon but rather an ongoing, dynamic act of self‑donation—a gift. Both human identity and the structure of creation find their ultimate grounding in this relational self‑gifting of God. In what follows, this paper will explore how Scripture, magisterial teachings, and the theological tradition converge to affirm that relationality is the very essence of being, and how contemporary insights from phenomenology further illuminate this truth.

Contextual Framework

Fundamental Theological Convictions

Catholic thought is deeply rooted in the conviction that our existence—and indeed, the entirety of creation—is defined by relational self‑giving. The foundational texts of Scripture clearly articulate this vision. In the creation narrative, Genesis 1:27 declares,

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”²
This passage affirms not only our intrinsic dignity but also our inherent relational identity, as we bear the divine imprint of communal love. Similarly, the New Testament reinforces this relational ontology. In 1 John 4:8 it is proclaimed that
“He who does not love does not know God; for God is love.”³
Through this statement, the apostolic witness makes it clear that the very nature of God is relational—God is, at the core, love. Acts 17:25 further develops this idea by asserting that
“[God] himself gives to all men life and breath and everything,”⁴
thereby portraying existence as an unmerited gift freely bestowed by the Creator. Romans 11:36 completes this scriptural picture by stating,
“For from him and through him and to him are all things.”⁵
Here the relational orientation of all creation is made explicit: every aspect of being flows from and returns to God.

This biblical vision is echoed in the Church’s magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church asserts that

“God himself is an eternal exchange of love, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and he has destined us to share in that exchange.”⁶
Moreover, Vatican II documents such as Gaudium et Spes stress that
“Man…cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.”⁷
And Dei Verbum emphasizes that divine revelation is not merely an abstract communication but a personal, relational self‑communication:
“Through divine revelation, God chose to show forth and communicate Himself and the eternal decisions of His will regarding the salvation of men.”⁸

The richness of the relational perspective is further deepened by the voices of tradition. Augustine famously stated,

“God is love. Whoever, therefore, loves the brethren, loves God; for God is love.”⁹
This declaration not only confirms the relational nature of the divine but also establishes the ethical dimension of our communion with God and with one another. Gregory of Nazianzus captures the mystery of divine relational unity by proclaiming,
“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.”¹⁰
Similarly, Thomas Aquinas explains that in God
“relation is not accidental but subsistent…thus the Fatherhood in God is identical with God’s essence.”¹¹
Bonaventure reminds us that
“All creatures flow forth from God, reflecting His relational goodness.”¹²

Explicit Integration of Jean‑Luc Marion’s Phenomenology of Givenness

Contemporary philosophy offers additional insights that resonate with the traditional Catholic understanding of relationality. In his groundbreaking work on the phenomenology of givenness, Jean‑Luc Marion articulates a foundational principle:

“What shows itself first gives itself.”¹³
Marion contends that the very act of a phenomenon revealing itself is an act of self‑donation—it is given in its own being. He further explains that
“The phenomenon does not show itself because we constitute it; it shows itself insofar as it gives itself.”¹⁴
This phenomenological perspective powerfully complements the theological claim: being is not an isolated act but a dynamic self‑giving that unfolds in relational communion.

Importance of Relationality for Classical Doctrines

The relational paradigm is not solely a biblical or phenomenological insight—it is also central to classical doctrinal formulations. Thomas Aquinas, for example, defines divine simplicity by stating that

“God is altogether simple, absolutely without composition, division, or parts.”¹⁵
Yet he also affirms that
“In God relation is not accidental but subsistent…thus the Fatherhood in God is identical with God’s essence.”¹⁶
This ensures that while relational distinctions are real, they do not imply any compositional complexity in God.

Furthermore, the doctrines of divine immutability and Creator–creature distinction are safeguarded within this framework. Boethius famously noted that

“Eternity is the complete and simultaneous possession of illimitable life all at once.”¹⁷
Aquinas echoes this by declaring that
“God is altogether immutable…it is impossible for God to change in any way.”¹⁸
Finally, Aquinas emphasizes that creatures participate in God’s being
“without ever becoming identical to it.”¹⁹
This preserves a clear Creator–creature distinction while maintaining a vision of participation and communion.

Footnotes For Introduction

Central Thesis, “To be is to be given; to exist is to be self‑given relationally.”
Genesis 1:27, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.
1 John 4:8, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.
Acts 17:25, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.
Romans 11:36, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), §221.
Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, §24, in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. (Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Co., 1996).
Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, §10, in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. (Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Co., 1996).
Augustine, “Homilies on the First Epistle of John,” Homily 7, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 497.
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 Publishers, 1994), 375.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 28, a. 2, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947).
Bonaventure, The Journey of the Mind into God, trans. Philotheus Boehner (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993), II.8.
Jean‑Luc Marion, Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness, trans. Jeffrey L. Kosky (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002), 5.
Marion, Being Given, 30.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 3, a. 7.
Ibid., q. 28, a. 2.
Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, trans. Victor Watts (London: Penguin Books, 1999), Book V.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 9, a. 1.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 4, a. 3.

I. Historical and Doctrinal Foundations of Relationality

1.1. Relationality in Sacred Scripture

The biblical witness lays a strong foundation for a relational understanding of being. In the opening chapters of Genesis, the creation narrative asserts that human identity is inherently relational. Genesis 1:27 proclaims, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”¹ In this verse, the divine imprint not only endows humanity with dignity but also establishes our identity as beings formed for communion and relationship. This idea is further reinforced in the New Testament. For instance, 1 John 4:8 states, “He who does not love does not know God; for God is love,”² suggesting that the very nature of God is relational and that love is the essence of divine existence. Acts 17:25 emphasizes that all of existence is a gift from God when it declares, “[God] himself gives to all men life and breath and everything,”³ framing every aspect of creation as an expression of God’s generous self‑gift. Romans 11:36 encapsulates this cosmic perspective by affirming, “For from him and through him and to him are all things,”⁴ thus highlighting the universal and all-encompassing relational orientation of reality.

1.2. Relationality in Magisterial Teaching

The Church’s magisterial documents echo and deepen the biblical vision of relationality. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, presents a dynamic picture of God’s nature, 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.”⁵ This description not only captures the self‑communicative nature of the divine but also calls believers into a participatory relationship with God. In addition, the Catechism underscores human dignity and the unique capacity for relationship by teaching that “of all visible creatures only man is able to know and love his creator…and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life.”⁶ This teaching affirms that true self‑fulfillment is achieved only through the sincere gift of oneself. The Second Vatican Council further reinforces this vision. In Gaudium et Spes (§24), it is declared that “Man…cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself,”⁷ a statement that situates human identity squarely within the framework of relational self‑donation. Moreover, Dei Verbum (§10) emphasizes that divine revelation is not an impersonal transmission of information but rather a personal and relational self‑communication in which “through divine revelation, God chose to show forth and communicate Himself and the eternal decisions of His will regarding the salvation of men.”⁸ Together, these teachings underscore that both divine and human realities are structured by the principle of relational self‑gifting.

1.3. Relationality in Church Fathers and Tradition

The patristic and scholastic traditions further illuminate the enduring nature of relationality within Catholic thought. Augustine succinctly encapsulates this vision when he declares, “God is love. Whoever, therefore, loves the brethren, loves God; for God is love.”⁹ In Augustine’s view, the very identity of God is inseparable from love, which forms the bedrock of all true relationship. Gregory of Nazianzus deepens this mystery by stating, “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.”¹⁰ Here, Gregory articulates the paradox of the Trinity—a unity that is fully expressed through relational distinctions. Similarly, Athanasius defends the relational character of the divine against Arian criticisms by asserting, “The Father is Father precisely because of the Son, relationally defined and eternally distinct.”¹¹ Bonaventure, reflecting on the creative act, writes that “all creatures reflect God’s relational goodness and emanate from divine self‑communication,”¹² emphasizing that the very act of creation is an expression of God’s relational nature. Thomas Aquinas further clarifies that, in God, “relation is not accidental but subsistent…thus the Fatherhood in God is identical with God’s essence.”¹³ Finally, Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) encapsulates this understanding by stating, “In God, person means relation…relation is the person itself.”¹⁴ Collectively, these voices from tradition affirm that relationality is not an extraneous attribute but is central to the divine nature and to the unfolding of creation. Gift and communion are central, so getting their limits right is important as we want to serve the tradition not contradict it, hence the synthesis so far.

Footnotes for Section I.

Genesis 1:27, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.
1 John 4:8, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.
Acts 17:25, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.
Romans 11:36, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), §221.
Ibid., §356.
Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, §24, in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. (Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Co., 1996).
Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, §10, in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. (Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Co., 1996).
Augustine, “Homilies on the First Epistle of John,” Homily 7, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 497.
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 Publishers, 1994), 375.
Athanasius, “Orations Against the Arians,” Book I, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 4, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 313.
Bonaventure, The Journey of the Mind into God, trans. Philotheus Boehner (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993), II.8.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 28, a. 2, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947).
Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, trans. J.R. Foster (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 183.

II. Philosophical Analysis and Appropriation of Benovsky through Marion

A central philosophical contribution of Jiri Benovsky is his explicit articulation of metaphysical primitives, which he defines as theoretical devices introduced “to put an end to a metaphysical explanatory regress… precisely introduced to provide explanation.”¹ For Benovsky, metaphysical primitives function as essential conceptual stopping points—fundamental realities posited to halt otherwise infinite explanatory chains. He further clarifies their explanatory necessity by emphasizing 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.”² Such an explicit definition underscores their indispensability within coherent metaphysical frameworks. However, Benovsky places this concept explicitly within a nominalist and anti-realist framework, stating that “Nominalism is the view that there are no universals… Only particulars exist.”³ By doing so, Benovsky intentionally distances himself from classical realism, advocating instead for a metaphysical minimalism grounded solely in particulars.

Within the context of Catholic metaphysics, this explicit nominalist framing reveals both important points of compatibility and notable tensions. Thomas Aquinas explicitly rejects nominalism, upholding instead a moderate realism foundational to Catholic thought, stating: “Universals exist within particulars, abstracted by the intellect, having real foundation in things themselves.”⁴ This moderate realism ensures that the intelligibility of reality rests firmly on the ordered relation between universal concepts and concrete particulars. Likewise, the Catechism explicitly reinforces a robust realism, particularly in sacramental theology, affirming that “in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself.”⁵ Thus, the Church clearly safeguards an objective metaphysical grounding that resists reductionist nominalism.

Yet, despite this doctrinal tension, Benovsky’s methodological insight regarding explanatory primitives can be fruitfully appropriated within a Catholic framework by re-contextualizing his notion beyond its original nominalist constraints. When stripped of its anti-realist presuppositions, Benovsky’s philosophical strategy harmonizes closely with Aquinas’s view of God as Ipsum Esse Subsistens (Subsistent Being Itself), understood as the ultimate explanatory primitive that definitively halts metaphysical regress. Aquinas explicitly employs fundamental explanatory posits such as actus essendi (act of being) precisely to elucidate reality’s foundational intelligibility without succumbing to infinite explanatory regress. Benovsky’s explicit definition thus resonates with Aquinas’s metaphysical realism once nominalist presuppositions are removed or recontextualized.

This conservative appropriation is further sharpened and deepened through the phenomenology of Jean-Luc Marion, who explicitly emphasizes the phenomenological priority of givenness. Marion asserts, “What shows itself first gives itself,”⁶ indicating that the givenness of phenomena is an irreducible primitive—an originating event that grounds all phenomenological explanation. Marion further clarifies that “the phenomenon does not show itself because we constitute it; it shows itself insofar as it gives itself.”⁷ This explicit priority of givenness, therefore, functions phenomenologically as a primitive act, halting any explanatory regress by being itself a foundational, self-presenting donation.

Explicitly stated, the interplay between Benovsky’s primitives and Marion’s phenomenology is particularly insightful. While Benovsky identifies the logical necessity of explanatory primitives as theoretical endpoints in metaphysical discourse, Marion provides phenomenological validation by demonstrating that phenomena inherently present themselves independently of prior conceptual frameworks. In other words, Benovsky offers the methodological structure that justifies positing fundamental realities as explanatory primitives, whereas Marion delivers phenomenological confirmation that such primitives genuinely appear as self-giving events, explicitly and originally presenting themselves without imposed conceptual mediation. Together, these thinkers complement one another, clarifying that relational givenness itself can legitimately function as the ultimate metaphysical primitive, inherently grounded in the self-giving character of phenomena.

To illustrate concretely, consider an analogy wherein creation itself exists within God’s embrace, with the world functioning analogously to humanity’s womb. Just as a womb provides a nurturing, relational context for life without itself being confused or identified with that life, the world provides the relational context wherein human beings exist, develop, and receive the gift of being. This vivid analogy demonstrates explicitly how relational givenness acts as a metaphysical primitive: humanity’s existence is not self-generated nor isolated but continually given relationally, sustained by the divine embrace. Thus, relational givenness emerges not merely as a secondary conceptual overlay but as the foundational structure underlying reality itself.

The integration of Benovsky’s insight on primitives, Marion’s phenomenology of givenness, and Aquinas’s participatory realism thus constitutes more than merely a refinement of Catholic metaphysics—it marks an explicit ontological shift. Traditionally, Thomistic metaphysics operates within a framework where substance and accident remain primary, and relationality, though real, is subsumed under a larger schema of essence and existence. However, what explicitly emerges from this synthesis is something more radical: relationality is no longer incidental or secondary but explicitly constitutive of being itself. Benovsky, despite his nominalist framework, correctly identifies that certain explanatory primitives are unavoidable, serving as necessary stopping points to prevent infinite regress. When removed from nominalist assumptions, Benovsky’s methodological insight provides the explicit logical foundation for reinterpreting relational self-gift as the fundamental primitive of reality. Marion further explicitly strengthens this position phenomenologically, showing that what is first given is always given relationally. Phenomena manifest explicitly through and as acts of donation. If being is not merely “there” but always explicitly given, relationality is the explicit condition for the very possibility of existence. Aquinas’s participatory ontology, thus transformed, explicitly reveals participation as fundamentally relational rather than merely abstract or metaphysical.

In this explicitly reoriented framework, Catholic theology achieves a coherent relational realism faithful to doctrinal affirmations of divine simplicity, sacramental presence, and participatory ontology, while avoiding nominalist reductionism and infinite regress. The Principle of Relationality thus explicitly marks not merely an advancement within Thomistic metaphysics but a fundamental reorientation of metaphysical first principles, affirming relational givenness explicitly as primordial: to exist is explicitly to be given, received, and actualized in relational self-gift.

Footnotes for Section II

¹ Jiri Benovsky, “Primitives,” in The Routledge Handbook of Metametaphysics, ed. Ricki Bliss and J.T.M. Miller (New York: Routledge, 2021), 227.
² Benovsky, “Primitives,” in The Routledge Handbook of Metametaphysics, 229.
³ Benovsky, “Primitives,” in The Routledge Handbook of Metametaphysics, 231.
⁴ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 85, a. 1, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947).
⁵ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), §1324.
⁶ Jean-Luc Marion, Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness, trans. Jeffrey L. Kosky (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002), 5.
⁷ Marion, Being Given, 30.
⁸ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 4, a. 3.

III. Explicitly Clarifying Doctrinal and Philosophical Limits

This section delineates the precise doctrinal and philosophical boundaries within which the relational paradigm must operate. In so doing, it demonstrates how traditional formulations—chiefly those of Thomas Aquinas and insights from Jean‑Luc Marion—affirm the compatibility of relational distinctions with core attributes of the divine, while simultaneously safeguarding against any doctrinal or metaphysical excess.

Divine Simplicity and Relationality

Thomas Aquinas explicitly articulates that relational distinctions do not compromise divine simplicity. He states,

“In God relation is not accidental but subsistent…thus the Fatherhood in God is identical with God’s essence.”¹
This assertion maintains that while relational distinctions are real, they are inherent to the one simple divine essence rather than adding any composite elements. Jean‑Luc Marion, complementing this view from a phenomenological perspective, observes that
“God gives himself to be known according to the mode of donation, and not according to the mode of objectness or causality.”²
Marion’s formulation emphasizes that the mode of divine self‑communication—its relational self‑donation—operates in a manner that preserves the absolute simplicity of God.

Divine Aseity and Independence

The doctrines of divine aseity and independence are also firmly established in Catholic teaching. The First Vatican Council underscores this by affirming that

“God…is completely self-sufficient, needing nothing outside himself, being uncaused and uncreated.”³
Similarly, the Catechism asserts God’s free and independent act of creation, noting that
“God created the world freely, directly, and without any help…No creature has the infinite power necessary to ‘create’ in the proper sense of the word.”⁴
These teachings ensure that God’s creative act remains an expression of His own independent, self‑sufficient nature.

Divine Immutability and Eternal Dynamism

The immutable nature of God is another critical doctrinal safeguard. Boethius explains divine eternity by stating that

“Eternity is the complete and simultaneous possession of illimitable life all at once.”⁵
Aquinas reinforces this notion by declaring,
“God is altogether immutable…it is impossible for God to change in any way.”⁶
In addition, Paul Helm contributes a nuanced understanding by asserting that
“God’s eternal nature entails relational dynamism without temporal succession or change.”⁷
Thus, while God’s relationality is dynamic, it does not entail any alteration or division in His immutable essence.

Creator–Creature Distinction and Participation Ontology

A strict distinction between Creator and creature is essential to prevent any notion of pantheistic emanation. The First Vatican Council categorically condemns views that reduce finite creatures to emanations of the divine substance by stating,

“If anyone says…finite things are emanations of the divine substance…let him be anathema.”⁸
Thomas Aquinas further clarifies this by explaining that
“Creatures participate in God’s being without ever becoming identical to it.”⁹
This participation ontology preserves the transcendence of God while acknowledging that all creatures share in His being through a relational, non-identical manner.

Conceptual Boundaries: Relationality and Existence

Finally, the conceptual limits of relationality are drawn by defining the nature of God as Ipsum Esse Subsistens (Subsistent Being Itself). Aquinas asserts,

“God is Subsistent Being Itself (Ipsum Esse Subsistens)… existence itself, which subsists of itself.”¹⁰
This definition underscores that God’s very mode of existence is self‑subsisting and non-composite. Complementing this metaphysical realism, Jean‑Luc Marion emphasizes that
“Being does not precede givenness, but is given itself, or rather gives itself, according to the mode proper to givenness.”¹¹
Marion’s insight confirms that the act of givenness is not secondary to being; rather, it is an intrinsic aspect of existence that supports the relational ontology without compromising the foundational nature of being.

Footnotes for Section III.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 28, a. 2, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947).
Jean‑Luc Marion, Givenness and Revelation, trans. Stephen E. Lewis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 73.
First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, ch. 1, in Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, no. 3001, ed. Peter Hünermann, 43rd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012).
Catechism of the Catholic Church, §296.
Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, trans. Victor Watts (London: Penguin Books, 1999), Book V.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 9, a. 1.
Paul Helm, Eternal God: A Study of God Without Time, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 12.
First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, ch. 1, in Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, no. 3024.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 4, a. 3.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 3, a. 4.
Jean‑Luc Marion, Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness, trans. Jeffrey L. Kosky (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002), 155.

IV. Implications of Relationality Clearly Articulated within These Limits

The comprehensive framework of relationality—established through Scripture, tradition, and contemporary philosophical insights—has far‐reaching implications for Catholic theology. This section explores how relationality informs our understanding of the Trinity, creation and anthropology, sacramental theology, and ethical and social responsibility, all within the doctrinal and philosophical limits previously outlined.

Trinitarian Theology

At the core of Trinitarian doctrine is the paradox of unity and diversity—a mystery that is elucidated through the concept of relationality. Thomas Aquinas explains that “in God relation is not accidental but subsistent… thus the Fatherhood in God is identical with God’s essence.”¹ In this formulation, relational distinctions are inherent to the one divine essence and do not imply any division or composition. This view is further reinforced by the Council of Florence, which decrees, “the Father is entirely in the Son and entirely in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entirely in the Father and entirely in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is entirely in the Father and entirely in the Son.”² Such declarations affirm that the three persons of the Trinity are united in such a way that each fully participates in the whole divine nature. Karl Rahner deepens this understanding by stating, “the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity… divine self-communication reveals eternal relationality.”³ Complementing these perspectives, Jean‑Luc Marion emphasizes phenomenologically that “revelation is a saturated phenomenon par excellence… in revelation God gives himself in person, not something of himself, but himself absolutely.”⁴ Together, these views provide a robust, multidimensional account of Trinitarian relationality that preserves both divine unity and the mystery of relational self-donation.

Creation and Anthropology

Relationality also provides a foundational framework for understanding human identity and creation. The Second Vatican Council, in Gaudium et Spes, asserts that “man…cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.”⁵ This statement indicates that true human fulfillment is found in the capacity for self-donation, mirroring the relational nature of God. John Paul II, in his encyclical Redemptor Hominis, observes that “man cannot live without love. He remains incomprehensible to himself… if love is not revealed to him… relational communion defines humanity.”⁶ Such assertions underscore that human beings are created for communion; our identity is deeply interwoven with our ability to give and receive love. Jean‑Luc Marion further grounds this anthropology phenomenologically by stating that “the self is given to itself only by being first given to another—by another.”⁷ In this way, the model of relational self-donation that characterizes the divine also provides the paradigm for human existence.

Sacramental Theology

In sacramental theology, relationality finds its most tangible expression in the Eucharist, which the Church regards as the source and summit of Christian life. The Catechism teaches that “the Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life.’… In the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself.”⁸ This sacrament not only symbolizes but actualizes the relational union between Christ and the Church. The Second Vatican Council’s Lumen Gentium further articulates that “in the sacrament of the Eucharistic bread, the unity of believers, who form one body in Christ, is both expressed and brought about.”⁹ Thus, the Eucharist becomes a living sign of the relational life that exists within the Trinity and is meant to be shared among all the faithful, fostering both unity and communion.

Ethical and Social Implications

The principle of relationality extends into the ethical and social dimensions of Catholic teaching, shaping our understanding of our responsibilities toward others and the world. Pope Francis, in his encyclical Laudato Si’, stresses that “everything is interconnected… since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion.”¹⁰ This perspective calls for an ethical vision that recognizes the interconnectedness of all creation. Similarly, Pope Benedict XVI underscores ethical responsibility by stating that “love of neighbour, grounded in the love of God, is first and foremost a responsibility for each individual member of the faithful… as a community, the Church must practise love.”¹¹ Hans Urs von Balthasar contributes by asserting that “ethical action emerges from participating in Christ’s relational drama, explicitly founded on relational communion.”¹² Finally, Jean‑Luc Marion remarks that “ethics begins when the other shows himself as given, imposing his presence and thus soliciting my responsibility.”¹³ These statements collectively affirm that ethical behavior and social justice are rooted in recognizing and acting upon the inherent relationality of all beings—a call to engage with the world in a manner that respects and upholds the interconnected dignity of every person.

Footnotes for Section IV.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 28, a. 2, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947).
Council of Florence, “Decree for the Jacobites” (1442), in Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, no. 1331, ed. Peter Hünermann, 43rd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012).
Karl Rahner, The Trinity, trans. Joseph Donceel (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1970), 22.
Jean‑Luc Marion, Givenness and Revelation, trans. Stephen E. Lewis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 33.
Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, §24, in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. (Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Co., 1996).
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1979), §10.
Jean‑Luc Marion, Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness, trans. Jeffrey L. Kosky (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002), 268.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), §1324.
Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, §3, in Vatican Council II, ed. Austin Flannery.
Pope Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2015), §120.
Pope Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2005), §20.
Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama: Theological Dramatic Theory, vol. 4, The Action, trans. Graham Harrison (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), 318–19.
Jean‑Luc Marion, Being Given, 319.

V. Summary of Contributions and Doctrinal Safeguards

The work presented in this paper demonstrates that the relational principle—“to be is to be given; to exist is to be self‑given relationally”—is thoroughly and integrally affirmed within the Catholic tradition. This summary is organized into three interrelated components: (1) the integration of relational ontology within the tradition; (2) the thoughtful appropriation of contemporary philosophical frameworks (specifically, those of Benovsky and Marion) that enrich our understanding of relationality; and (3) the clear preservation of essential doctrinal boundaries.

Integration within Tradition is explicitly affirmed through multiple sources. Sacred Scripture provides the initial grounding for relational ontology. In Genesis, we read that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him,”¹ while 1 John declares, “God is love.”² Augustine further encapsulates the biblical vision by stating, “God is love. Whoever, therefore, loves the brethren, loves God; for God is love.”³ Magisterial teaching from Vatican II reinforces these themes: Gaudium et Spes asserts, “Man…cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself,”⁴ and Dei Verbum proclaims that “through divine revelation, God chose to show forth and communicate Himself and the eternal decisions of His will regarding the salvation of men.”⁵ These sources collectively establish that relationality is not a novel innovation but a truth continuously revealed from Scripture and upheld by Tradition.

The paper then demonstrates a thoughtful appropriation of Benovsky’s framework. Benovsky defines metaphysical primitives as “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.”⁶ This insight, when integrated with Aquinas’s moderate realism—which asserts that “universals exist within particulars, abstracted by the intellect, having real foundation in things themselves”—⁷ and the Catechism’s affirmation that “in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself,”⁸ provides a bridge between rigorous metaphysical analysis and sacramental realism. Complementarily, Jean‑Luc Marion grounds relational realism phenomenologically with his assertion that “what shows itself first gives itself.”⁹ Together, these approaches not only halt the regress of explanation but also enrich our articulation of relationality within the Catholic intellectual tradition.

Finally, the paper explicitly preserves doctrinal boundaries. The First Vatican Council declares that “God…is completely self-sufficient, needing nothing outside himself, being uncaused and uncreated,”¹⁰ thereby affirming divine aseity and independence. Moreover, Aquinas safeguards divine simplicity by stating, “in God relation is not accidental but subsistent… thus the Fatherhood in God is identical with God’s essence,”¹¹ and he further distinguishes the Creator–creature relationship by noting that “creatures participate in God’s being without ever becoming identical to it.”¹² These doctrinal safeguards ensure that while relationality is central to understanding divine self-donation and the mystery of the Trinity, it remains consistent with the Church’s teachings on the simplicity and transcendence of God.

Footnotes for Section V

Genesis 1:27, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.
1 John 4:8, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.
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.
Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, §24, in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. (Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Co., 1996).
Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, §10, in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery.
Jiri Benovsky, “Primitives,” in The Routledge Handbook of Metametaphysics, ed. Ricki Bliss and J.T.M. Miller (New York: Routledge, 2021), 229.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 85, a. 1, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947).
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), §1324.
Jean‑Luc Marion, Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness, trans. Jeffrey L. Kosky (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002), 5.
First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, ch. 1, in Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, no. 3001, ed. Peter Hünermann, 43rd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012).
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 28, a. 2.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 4, a. 3.

Conclusion

The central thesis of this paper—“to be is to be given; to exist is to be self‑given relationally”—has been conclusively affirmed through a synthesis of scriptural, traditional, and contemporary philosophical sources. Relational ontology emerges not as a radical new innovation but as an enduring principle continuously revealed through Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterial teaching. The biblical witness—from Genesis’s declaration that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him”¹ to 1 John’s proclamation that “God is love”²—lays the foundation for a relational understanding of being. This vision is further articulated by the Church Fathers, as seen in Augustine’s assertion that “God is love. Whoever, therefore, loves the brethren, loves God; for God is love”³, and reinforced in the magisterial documents of Vatican II, where Gaudium et Spes proclaims that “man…cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself”⁴, and Dei Verbum declares that “through divine revelation, God chose to show forth and communicate Himself and the eternal decisions of His will regarding the salvation of men”⁵. Contemporary philosophical insights, notably Jiri Benovsky’s definition of metaphysical primitives as “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”⁶, and Jean‑Luc Marion’s phenomenological assertion that “what shows itself first gives itself”⁷, further reinforce the coherence of this relational framework.

The practical and theological implications of relationality are significant and multifaceted. In Trinitarian theology, for example, Thomas Aquinas maintains that “in God relation is not accidental but subsistent… thus the Fatherhood in God is identical with God’s essence”⁸, a view that is echoed by the Council of Florence’s decree on the interpenetration of the divine persons⁹ and deepened by Karl Rahner’s insight that “divine self-communication reveals eternal relationality”¹⁰. In the realm of anthropology, Vatican II’s affirmation that “man…cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself”¹¹, together with John Paul II’s assertion that “man cannot live without love… relational communion defines humanity”¹², demonstrates that human identity is ultimately shaped by our capacity for self‑donation and communion. Similarly, in sacramental theology, the Eucharist is celebrated as the tangible sign of divine relationality—as the Catechism teaches, “the Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life’… in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself”¹³—while in ethical and social spheres, the calls to love and communal responsibility by Pope Benedict XVI and Hans Urs von Balthasar underscore that ethical action naturally arises from recognizing our interconnectedness.

Ultimately, the limits of gift and communion are not deficiencies but rather the necessary parameters that define the dynamic tension between relational self‑donation and the preservation of divine simplicity and transcendence. This study shows that relationality, as expressed by the synthesis of Scripture, Tradition, and the philosophical insights of Benovsky and Marion, fulfills the task of articulating a coherent relational ontology within Catholic thought. Essential doctrinal safeguards—such as Vatican I’s affirmation that “God…is completely self-sufficient, needing nothing outside himself, being uncaused and uncreated”¹⁴ and Aquinas’s assertion that “in God relation is not accidental but subsistent… thus the Fatherhood in God is identical with God’s essence”¹⁵—secure the integrity of this framework. Consequently, the relational model not only reinforces the unity and diversity of the Trinity and shapes our understanding of human identity and sacramental life, but it also grounds our ethical responsibilities in the recognition of our shared interconnectedness. As the Catechism declares, “God himself is an eternal exchange of love… and he has destined us to share in that exchange”¹⁶, confirming that the profound interplay of gift and communion lies at the heart of both divine mystery and human existence.

Footnotes for Conclusion

Genesis 1:27, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.
1 John 4:8, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.
Augustine, “Homilies on the First Epistle of John,” Homily 7, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 497.
Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, §24, in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. (Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Co., 1996).
Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, §10, in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. (Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Co., 1996).
Jiri Benovsky, “Primitives,” in The Routledge Handbook of Metametaphysics, ed. Ricki Bliss and J.T.M. Miller (New York: Routledge, 2021), 229.
Jean‑Luc Marion, Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness, trans. Jeffrey L. Kosky (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002), 5.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 28, a. 2, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947).
Council of Florence, “Decree for the Jacobites” (1442), in Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, no. 1331, ed. Peter Hünermann, 43rd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012).
Karl Rahner, The Trinity, trans. Joseph Donceel (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1970), 22.
Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, §24, in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. (Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Co., 1996).
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1979), §10.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), §1324.
First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, ch. 1, in Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, no. 3001, ed. Peter Hünermann, 43rd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012).
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, q. 28, a. 2.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), §221.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Augustine. “Homilies on the First Epistle of John.” In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, edited by Philip Schaff, vol. 7, 459–529. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Athanasius. “Orations Against the Arians.” In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 4, 303–447. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

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

Boethius. The Consolation of Philosophy. Translated by Victor Watts. London: Penguin Books, 1999.

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

Council of Florence. “Decree for the Jacobites” (1442). In Enchiridion Symbolorum, edited by Peter Hünermann, 43rd ed., no. 1331. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012.

First Vatican Council. Dei Filius. In Enchiridion Symbolorum, edited by Peter Hünermann, 43rd ed., nos. 3001, 3024. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012.

Gregory of Nazianzus. “Oration 40.” In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 7, 360–377. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

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

Pope Benedict XVI. Deus Caritas Est. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2005.

Pope Francis. Laudato Si’. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2015.

Rahner, Karl. The Trinity. Translated by Joseph Donceel. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1970.

Ratzinger, Joseph. Introduction to Christianity. Translated by J.R. Foster. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004.

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

Second Vatican Council. Dei Verbum. In Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, edited by Austin Flannery, O.P. Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Co., 1996.

Second Vatican Council. Lumen Gentium. In Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, edited by Austin Flannery, O.P. Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Co., 1996.

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

Secondary Sources

Balthasar, Hans Urs von. Theo-Drama: Theological Dramatic Theory. Vol. 4, The Action. Translated by Graham Harrison. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994.

Benovsky, Jiri. “Primitives.” In The Routledge Handbook of Metametaphysics, edited by Ricki Bliss and J.T.M. Miller, 227–232. New York: Routledge, 2021.

Helm, Paul. Eternal God: A Study of God Without Time. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Marion, Jean-Luc. Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness. Translated by Jeffrey L. Kosky. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002.

Marion, Jean-Luc. Givenness and Revelation. Translated by Stephen E. Lewis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Scriptural Sources

The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994.

Genesis 1:27
Acts 17:25
Romans 11:36
1 John 4:8