Matt Fradd
Spirituality/Belief • Books • Writing
This PWA community exists to facilitate an online community of PWA listeners and all lovers of philosophy and theology.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?

Pop-Cultured Catholic #11: Discerning the Healthiest View of Romantic Love and Desire in “The Hunchback of Notre Dame”

For this weekend and the next, I have planned to finally write out the first two posts I have been wanting to share on one of my favorite stories of all time, “The Hunchback of Notre Dame”. In particular, I have been a huge fan of the Victor Hugo novel originally titled “Notre-Dame de Paris”, its animated 1996 musical adaptation by Disney, and Disney’s stage play versions of their animated musical.

The story revolves around a Romani dancer named Esmeralda, whose beauty and personality draw the hearts of many men in Paris, most notably the deformed bellringer Quasimodo, the handsome captain of the guard Phoebus, and the corrupt religious minister Claude Frollo. In fact, the story’s original title translates to “Our Lady of Paris”, which has a double meaning in reference to both Esmeralda and Notre Dame cathedral itself. Victor Hugo originally framed them as his story’s two main characters, and it was later retitlings/adaptations that put more emphasis on Quasimodo’s side of the story.

There are multiple themes across the different versions of this story, which deeply resonated with me. They include prejudice, the plight of society’s outcasts, inner versus outer beauty, the potential for corruption among societal/religious elite, trying to find faith in God amidst brutal times, the historical significance of Notre Dame cathedral which ought to be preserved, and so on. But perhaps the most prominent theme is how people can differently react to unrequited romantic longings plus the dangers of having warped attitudes towards romance and sexuality.

To discern the healthiest view of romantic love and desire, thus dissecting one of the story’s biggest themes, I shall summarize and judge Esmeralda’s differing relationships with Claude Frollo, the novel version of Phoebus, Quasimodo, and the Disneyfied version of Phoebus. And here below are my critiques…

1.) Archdeacon/Judge Claude Frollo

It is easy to conclude that Claude Frollo harbors the worst attitude towards Esmeralda, out of the four male characters here. Frollo is a corrupt archdeacon (or religious judge in some adaptations), who harbors a Puritanical mindset, a prejudice towards the Romani people, a pharisaical pride, and an unwillingness to take responsibility for his faults or consider Esmeralda’s wellbeing over his own. Once he finds himself madly infatuated with Esmeralda, he longs to either make her his own or have her executed as a witch to "free" himself. While Frollo has varying degrees of tragic, sympathetic, and initially good-hearted qualities (depending on which version of the story it is), he is always a villain by the end. His lust, jealousy, hypocrisy, projected self-loathing, and downward spiral into madness drive the plot, leading to much death and destruction.

Frollo embodies the harm of acting on romantic interests with jealousy and possessiveness, plus seeing sexuality as something to be feared and repressed, lest one sinfully indulges it as their only alternative. His view of Esmeralda fits the latter part of the “Madonna–whore complex”, reducing the young woman down to just her sexuality, then further reducing her sexuality into either a temptation from Satan to be defeated or a source of personal happiness he cannot live without. His song in the Disney adaptations, “Hellfire”, illustrates this vividly.

2.) Captain Phoebus de Châteaupers (Novel Version)

While the book version of Phoebus is not the main villain catalyzing the plot’s events nor actively persecuting Esmeralda, he too is an antagonist responsible for Esmeralda’s plight and motivated by a brand of “lust at the expense of love”. The knight misuses his outward beauty and masculine charms in order to seduce women, leave them, and then move on to the next. To him, Esmeralda is merely his latest “fix” to pursue, even as he is betrothed to the noblewoman Fleur-de-Lys de Gondelaurier. Phoebus gradually manipulates Esmeralda into laying with him, only being stopped at the last moment when Frollo stabs him in a jealous rage. Phoebus survives, but he would rather abandon Esmeralda to be executed on false charges of witchcraft and attempted murder than vindicate her, just to keep his womanizing behavior swept under the rug. Esmeralda holds out hope that Phoebus will come to her aid, while he is indifferent to her and couldn't care less about her fate. Upon recovering, he even rides in to help slay the rioters who are trying to save Esmeralda. In the end, his only comeuppance is the narrator’s implication that his vices will doom him to an unhappy marriage.

While Frollo harbors the mindset of a repressive and misogynistic Puritan, the book's Phoebus embraces a hedonistic “Playboy” mentality towards women, which is also dehumanizing. And while Phoebus does not hate Esmeralda like Frollo does, he exhibits a callous indifference to her, which some argue is even more an opposite of love than hate. Jesus has even said to some saints that the indifference and stagnation of “lukewarm” souls often wound his heart more than the sins of those who directly oppose him. Not to mention Revelation 3:15-16, “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth”. It is for similar reasons that some fans find the book's Phoebus to be even more unlikeable than the book's Frollo, despite the latter committing objectively far worse actions. The former's lack of care whatsoever ensures that he pretty much has no redeemable qualities, which even the latter exhibits at points.

3.) Quasimodo the Hunchbacked Bellringer

Quasimodo is the first character listed here to harbor a more genuine and loving attitude towards Esmeralda, though it is not perfect. After Esmeralda shows Quasimodo compassion, while he is beaten and humiliated at the pillory, the hunchback becomes infatuated with her too. Later on, he returns the favor by saving Esmeralda from her execution attempt and offers her sanctuary in Notre Dame, where he does all he can to take care of her. In the meantime, he looks up to her as this paragon of virtue, whom he is forever indebted to and whose affections he hopes to earn. When Esmeralda does not requite his more childlike and innocent crush, he continues to selflessly serve and protect her. In the novel, Quasimodo falls into despair when Frollo orchestrates Esmeralda’s recapture and successful second execution attempt. He angrily throws Frollo off the cathedral and lies next to Esmeralda’s corpse until he himself dies. In the Disney animated film, he has a much happier ending. Not only does Esmeralda survive. But Quasimodo also learns that his love for Esmeralda can work beautifully as a mutual platonic friendship, even if they are not meant to be romantic partners.

Quasimodo’s attitude towards Esmeralda is the equal and opposite to Frollo’s, which is positive in many areas, but also harbors some opposite flaws that would still impede a healthy romantic relationship. Quasimodo and Frollo both grow up in isolation with only each other as company, until their obsessions with Esmeralda form. In contrast to Frollo, Quasimodo looks up to Esmeralda as this Madonna figure and angel of light above him, illustrated by Disney's lyrics in “Heaven’s Light”. While coming from a place of genuine admiration and care, rather than objectifying her, it is still not exactly a realistic and grounded view of her either. One important component of a healthy romantic relationship is for both people to be on similar levels of maturity and agency, so they can work together as a complementary team. Also, while Frollo decides he cannot live without her romantic affections in that “she will be mine or she will burn” kind of way, Quasimodo struggles to live without having Esmeralda in his own way. This culminates in him either dying in Esmeralda’s tomb or learning to overcome his initial heartbreak by evolving his romantic attachment into a friendship.

4.) Captain Phoebus de Châteaupers (Disneyfied Version)

Finally, we have the Disneyfied version of Phoebus, whose role in the story and attitude towards Esmeralda is an idealized blending of different traits from both the novel Phoebus and another character from the book named Pierre Gringoire (whom I am not covering in this post but am indirectly representing here). Like Phoebus’s primary role in the novel, the Disney Phoebus is a dashing knight whom Esmeralda eventually falls for, thus highlighting Quasimodo and Frollo’s unrequited feelings for her. Due in part to the elements blended from Gringoire, though, the Disneyfied Phoebus is a far more respectable character. He shares Esmeralda’s empathy with the downtrodden and risks his own life to fight for her. Esmeralda and Phoebus in the Disney version are on equal footing with each other and harbor a mutual physical attraction. That is, in which Phoebus recognizes and subtly acknowledges Esmeralda’s desirability, while still viewing it in proportion with her full dignity as a human being. Between this version of Phoebus being a composite character and Disney’s animated adaptation going for a happier ending, he and Esmeralda become a couple by the end.

Frollo saw Esmeralda as a witch in league with the Devil, the book Phoebus saw her as a toy to briefly play with, and Quasimodo saw her as a heavenly angel, but the Disneyfied Phoebus saw Esmeralda as a human being equal in dignity and agency to himself. I always felt this observation sums up the biggest reason why the Disneyfied Phoebus is an ideal romantic match for Esmeralda. I enjoy that version of Phoebus and agree with some people that he is even a bit underrated, as a male Disney hero in his own right.

Those are my thoughts. If anyone would like to (re)watch the Disney film’s clips of “Heaven’s Light” and “Hellfire” or even check out Alan Menken’s intriguing prototype to what would become the “Hellfire” we know, here are the links below:

1.) Quasimodo's "Heaven's Light" Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY86FuW36EY

2.) Claude Frollo's "Hellfire" Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkGb6DlbcD0

3.) "Hellfire (Demo) (Remastered 2021)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J35C7A7TSlw

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Nine Years In - Taking Stock of My Priestly Life - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

I was ordained on May 21, 2016 . . . as I celebrated an anniversary this past month, I prayed a bit about what the Lord has done, is doing, and might do in my life. What gives life? What deals death? And then, well, I pushed record. Here's what come out : )

00:19:22
Sneak Peek: Tammy Peterson

This Wednesday I'll release my interview with Tammy Peterson here on Locals. Thanks for being a member of Locals.

00:00:58
The Human Excellence that Technology Can Never Replace - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

Squad, I've been thinking about AI lately. It's not that I understand the technology, though I am trying some, but that my limited understanding has given me occasion to think specifically about what is distinctive to the human person. And, it turns out, those distinctive notes are incredibly precious. In this video, I'm think about our call to conversation for intimacy . . . look forward to chatting with you there.

00:21:22
Simple NEW Lofi Song

Working on an entire album of lofi music. Here's one of those songs. Album should drop next week. THEN, a couple of weeks after that we hope to have our 24/7 stream up and running.

Simple NEW Lofi Song
December 01, 2022
Day 5 of Advent

THE ERROR OF ARIUS ABOUT THE INCARNATION

In their eagerness to proclaim the unity of God and man in Christ, some heretics went to the opposite extreme and taught that not only was there one person, but also a single nature, in God and man. This error took its rise from Arius. To defend his position that those scriptural passages where Christ is represented as being inferior to the Father, must refer to the Son of God Himself, regarded in His assuming nature, Arius taught that in Christ there is no other soul than the Word of God who, he maintained, took the place of the soul in Christ’s body. Thus when Christ says, in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I,” or when He is introduced as praying or as being sad, such matters are to be referred to the very nature of the Son of God. If this were so, the union of God’s Son with man would be effected not only in the person, but also in the nature. For, as we know, the unity of human nature arises from the union of soul and body.

The...

Day 5 of Advent
November 27, 2022
Day 1 of Advent

RESTORATION OF MAN BY GOD THROUGH THE INCARNATION

We indicated above that the reparation of human nature could not be effected either by Adam or by any other purely human being. For no individual man ever occupied a position of pre-eminence over the whole of nature; nor can any mere man be the cause of grace. The same reasoning shows that not even an angel could be the author of man’s restoration. An angel cannot be the cause of grace, just as he cannot be man’s recompense with regard to the ultimate perfection of beatitude, to which man was to be recalled. In this matter of beatitude angels and men are on a footing of equality. Nothing remains, therefore, but that such restoration could be effected by God alone.

But if God had decided to restore man solely by an act of His will and power, the order of divine justice would not have been observed. justice demands satisfaction for sin. But God cannot render satisfaction, just as He cannot merit. Such a service pertains to one who ...

Day 1 of Advent

I built LUCE in the LEGO BrickHeadz style

post photo preview

I need some prayers. I finished my book, finally. It took me seven years to write. It’s about my journey with latened hearing loss and how my faith sustained me. I submitted it to Ignatius Press. I will hear back in 3-6 months.
If they don’t publish it, I will try other Catholic publishers.

A straight up miracle happened and there is no way anyone will convince me otherwise! I am in Clearwater, Fl. I was in the Gulf with my aqua pack cochlear implants. I turned around and a wave hit me. I lost my processor. I lost all hope but started pleading with God. Mike refused to give up and keeps searching. I said the St. Anthony prayer three times. I begged God to let it wash up on shore. I was even trying to track it with the app!!

Suddenly, this man appears with it in his hand. I burst into tears, thanking him. He refused to take any cash as a reward. I hugged him and couldn’t stop saying thank you. That’s $10k I would have had to come up with on my own because the only thing I cannot do is lose them. It was totally my fault. I should have worn the clips they gave me for it. Anyway, miracles do happen. How else would someone find something so small in the Gulf?!

post photo preview
Welcome to Locals!

A big and hearty welcome to all who have joined our Locals community!

Here's what to expect:

  1.  Interviews one week early (before they hit Youtube)
  2. The opportunity to ask my guests questions
  3. Exclusive biweekly spiritual direction videos from Fr. Pine
  4. Access to video courses such as:
  • 7 part series on St. Augustine's Confessions by Dr Chad Engelland (here).
  • 5 Part series on Salvation History by Dr Andrew Swafford (here).
  • 5 Part series on Flannery O'Connor by Fr Damian Ferrence (here).
  • 6 Part series on Love and Responsibility by Christopher West & Matt Fradd (here).
  • 5 Part Series o Aquinas' 5 ways by Dr. Ed Feser (here).

5. Occasional livestreams with me.

6. Knowing that you're supporting the work of Pints With Aquinas.

Thanks!

Read full Article
post photo preview
Life is very, very simple, actually.

There is a lot going on. We are confused about many things. Embarrassed that we are confused. Pretend not to be. Have a few soundbites we can rely on when the conversation turns to Trump or the state of the Church or what is going on in Israel and Gaza or the AI revolution. We hope they don’t press us because we know enough to answer two or three questions before they will hit bedrock and we will have nothing.

All of this can lead us to believe the lie that life is complicated. And since we cannot figure it out, we should either quit, or numb, or pretend, or run ourselves ragged trying to understand everything we think we should understand.

And yet life is simple. Very, very simple. There is very little to figure out.

Love what is good. Hate what is evil. But how? When I have willingly habituated myself to do the opposite. Pray. Repent. Keep turning away from distractions. Don’t hate yourself for failing. Hope in the good God who is better than you think He is. Who cares for you more than you think He does.

What are your duties? Do them with joy and attention. Don’t hate yourself when you fail at this. Pray. Repent. Have a sense of humor about your littleness. You are incredibly loved after all, remember?

Turn away from what is useless and petty and vulgar and think about what is excellent.

Say “Your will be done” 100 times a day, especially when things are bad or seem meaningless. Your headache. Your bad night sleep. The house you can’t seem to get around to tidying.

Be patient and gentle with stupid people who can’t seem to make themselves love or want to love what is good, yourself first and foremost.

Jesus, help me want to want to love you. Help me want to want to hate anything opposed to you or your kingdom.

Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Read full Article
post photo preview
Is Knowledge Possible (No ... And Yes)

I want to begin by admitting that I’m an amateur when it comes to epistemology. I do have a master’s degree in philosophy, but epistemology wasn’t my area of focus. Some of you reading this will know more about the subject than I do. And to be honest, I’m a little nervous about the comments. There’s a good chance that if you engage with what I’m about to say in any real depth, I won’t understand you and it will be my fault that I don’t.

Okay, with that admission out of the way…

 

We've long assumed that knowledge requires three criteria: (1) belief, (2) truth, and (3) justification. In other words, to know something is to believe it, for it to be true, and to have good reason for believing it. That’s the classical definition: justified true belief (JTB).

And just real quick, if you’re wondering why knowledge can’t be defined by just the first two criteria, it’s because believing something that happens to be true is more like getting lucky than knowledge. Imagine I say it’s raining in Adelaide, but I have no reason for thinking so. I didn’t check my weather app or ask anyone who lives there. If it turns out that it is raining, I was right, but only by chance. That’s not knowledge. To genuinely know something, you need more than belief and truth, you need a reason for thinking it’s true. You need justification.

Okay …

Along Comes Gettier

Now, for a long time, this three-part definition held up well. But then, in 1963, Edmund Gettier came along and broke everything in three pages. You can read that paper here.

Gettier presented scenarios where someone has a belief that is both true and justified, yet we still hesitate to call it knowledge. Why? Because the belief turns out to be true by accident.

One of the most well-known examples (though not from Gettier himself but often used to illustrate his point) is the case of the stopped clock. A man glances at a clock that has stopped working, sees that it says 2:00, and forms the belief that it is 2:00. And it just so happens to be 2:00. His belief is true. He used a normally reliable method, checking the time on a clock. And yet, the method failed. The belief was correct purely by coincidence.

Can We Save “Knowledge”

Now, some have tried to save the classical definition by saying, “Well, that wasn’t really justified. The clock was broken, so the belief was faulty from the start.” But that kind of move just shifts the problem. If we start redefining justification every time we hit a weird case, we risk making it so strict that it no longer resembles what anyone would call a “justified belief.”

Others, like Alvin Goldman, proposed ditching the concept of justification entirely. Maybe knowledge isn’t about having reasons, but about using processes that generally lead to truth. This is called reliabilism: if your belief comes from a trustworthy process (like vision, memory, or scientific inference) it counts as knowledge.

But again, the clock case poses a problem. Even if the process is usually reliable, it clearly failed here. So are we back to calling this knowledge, even though it was true by luck?

Still others have suggested that knowledge is less about having the right reasons or processes, and more about the person doing the knowing. This is what’s known as virtue epistemology: the idea that knowledge is a kind of intellectual success rooted in intellectual virtue: careful thinking, honesty, openness to evidence. On this view, knowing isn’t about checking boxes; it’s about doing something well. Like an archer hitting the bullseyes, not by accident, but through skill.

That’s compelling. But even here, questions linger. How do we measure intellectual virtue? And isn’t it still possible to do everything right and end up wrong—or to be wrong for the right reasons and still, somehow, stumble into truth?

An (Initially) Unsettling Realization

Which brings me to a more unsettling thought.

If a belief like “it’s 2:00” can be true, feel justified, come from a reliable process, and still be the product of a broken clock—what else might we be getting wrong without realizing it? Maybe the deeper problem is that we can always be deceived. Even our best faculties (sight, memory, reason etc.) can betray us. And if that’s the case, maybe knowledge (at least in the strong, philosophical sense) is impossible. Or if not impossible, impossible to know if and when you have it.

David Hume once said, “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.” That strikes me as a sane and honest approach. The question isn’t whether I can be absolutely certain about what I believe, but whether I have good reasons for believing it—and whether I’m open to changing my mind if those reasons fall apart.

Some might find it unsettling—even scandalous—that we can’t achieve a God’s-eye view of the world. But honestly, what’s strange isn’t that we can’t see things with perfect clarity. It’s that we ever thought we should.

Maybe that’s why I find myself leaning toward fallibilism—the view that we can still know things, even while admitting we might be wrong. That kind of knowledge isn’t rigid or absolute, but humble and revisable. And that, to me, feels much closer to the way real life works.

So no, I’m not sure we need to cling too tightly to the word knowledge, at least not in the abstract, capital-K sense. What matters more is the posture we take toward the truth. That we pursue it carefully, honestly, and with a readiness to revise our beliefs when the evidence calls for it.

At least, that’s what I think I know.

 
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals