O God , I Love Thee

O God, I love thee, I love thee—
Not out of hope of heaven for me
Nor fearing not to love and be
In the everlasting burning.

Thou, thou, my Jesus, after me
Didst reach thine arms out dying,
For my sake sufferedst nails and lance,
Mocked and marred countenance,
Sorrows passing number,
Sweat, and care and cumber,
Yea, and death, and this for me.
And thou couldst see me sinning:

Then I, why should I not love thee,
Jesu, so much in love with me ?
Not for heaven’s sake; not to be
Out of hell by loving thee;
Not for any gains I see;
But just the way that thou didst me
I do love and will love thee:

What must I love thee, Lord, for then ?
For being my King and God.  Amen.

by Gerard Manley Hopkins

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to O God , I Love Thee

  1. johnhenrycn says:

    Gerard Manley Hopkins, Selected Poems & Prose.

    “Gerard Manley Hopkins was the author of some of the most dynamic, musical and memorable poetry in the English language. He made ingenious use of alliteration, assonance, internal rhyme and metrics, as well as coining beautifully evocative words and phrases – ‘morning’s minion’; ‘rose-moles all in stipple’; ‘worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie’. His work is filled with a vivid joy in the natural world and praise for God’s creations: ‘Glory be to God for dappled things—/For skies of coupled-colour as a brinded cow’. Yet his depression also found anguished expression in his verse, as in the sonnet ‘No worst’: ‘O the mind, mind has mountains; cliffs of fall/Frightful, sheer, no-man-fathomed.’ “

    A nice Christmas gift for one’s favourite priest, deacon, seminarian or religious. So sad that all of his early poems are lost to us.

    Like

  2. toadspittle says:

    Why is Christ tied to the cross? Is it Mel Gibson’s movie? What about all the authentic nails, everywhere?
    He (GMH) made ingenious use of alliteration, assonance, internal rhyme and metrics, as well as coining beautifully evocative words and phrases – ‘morning’s minion’; ‘rose-moles all in stipple’; ‘worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie’.
    …Apart from that, he wasn’t bad.

    Like

  3. toadspittle says:

    Oops! Another look reveals the nails amongst the gore. (I think)
    So that’s all right, then. Just a bit of reinforcement.
    Can’t be too careful!
    Gerald (very gay, apparently)…

    http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/The-art-and-faith-of-Gerard-Manley-Hopkins-4424

    …thinks he must love God, because God is King.
    What an odd reason, if we think about it. Why should we love kings? (Or Queens?)

    Like

  4. johnhenrycn says:

    Thanks so much for your gratuitous reference to GMH’s homoerotic impulses, Toady. What would we ever do without that wet blanket you’re pleased to call your waggish sense of humour? Any evidence he surrendered to those impulses before or after being received into the Church? Any evidence he failed to confess and to be contrite about any such surrenders, if there were any?

    His first name is Gerard.

    Like

  5. toadspittle says:

    “Any evidence he (Gerry) surrendered to those impulses before or after being received into the Church? Any evidence he failed to confess and to be contrite about any such surrenders, if there were any?”

    No evidence whatsoever, as far as I know, JH. And what does it matter anyway? You mustn’t be so dogmatic about “evidence,” you know. Makes you sound like an agnostic, or something.
    Have faith.
    Also you, I’m afraid, will have to decide what to do without my sense of humour, if I ever stop letting it run amok on my beloved CP&S.
    “Waggish?” When have I ever suggested that?
    Sounds a bit ‘gay’ to me. But you and Gerard – (I humbly beg his pardon) would know far better than I.

    Like

  6. johnhenrycn says:

    “No evidence whatsoever, as far as I know…what does it matter anyway?”
    It matters because he was a Catholic and a priest, and hence, duty bound (doubly so) to avoid giving in to carnal impulses. Have you forgotten everything you were once taught?

    “You mustn’t be so dogmatic about ‘evidence’…”
    But when someone (you) insinuates that someone else approves of ISIS or that someone else is “very gay” (in what sense is a chaste and celibate man “very gay“?), your readers are entitled to demand proofs acceptable in law for what the victims of your slanders are accused of.
    On the other hand, my dear fellow, belief in the core doctrines of Christianity – the most central of which are the life, death and resurrection of Our Lord – do not and cannot require that sort of proof, because they happened long before any of us were born. It is entirely rational for people to accept and believe the eyewitness testimony of the Ist Century disciples of Christ, just as we accept the eyewitness testimony for other long ago historical events, and indeed, just like our law courts will sometimes accept the eyewitness testimony of a single witness in reaching a verdict or judgment.

    Assume, for the purposes of argument, that someday in the future you and Adrian come face to face with Jesus, and He asks you and him the basis for your non-belief, or semi-non-belief, what will be a good answer?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s