Matt Fradd
Books • Spirituality/Belief • 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
Spiritual Direction - Lessons Learned at SEEK - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

I was at SEEK in DC this past week. As is my tradition, I got hilariously sick and managed to learn some sweet lessons along the way : )

00:21:44
January 02, 2025
Studio Update Video
00:01:50
December 30, 2024
Quick short update
00:02:09
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

Please pray for the repose of the soul of Ryder Larson, a 16 year old who killed himself this morning. Please also pray for my nephew Pacer, Ryder has been his best friend since they were little and Pacer, plus the whole Rogers family, are very hurt by this. Ryder was LDS, so likely doesn't have people praying for him now.

Broken Catholic Man Needs Help. Today I reached an emotional and godless breaking point. I got angry at my wife, yelled at her, and our four kids between the ages of three and fifteen witnessed it. It was not quick or brief, but pervasive and prideful. It has been four hours since the tirade on my part and my wife and I are feeling awkward talking to each other. This does not happen more than once a year, and I want to effect change. Looking for prayers, and references to anger management books, teachings and even counseling with a Catholic foundation.

January 10, 2025
Studio update

Working away on the new studio. First step, covering up all these beautiful windows 😭

January 03, 2025
post photo preview
Did the Early Church Recognize the Pope’s Authority? A Socratic Dialogue You Can’t Ignore

Below is an imagined Socratic dialogue between a Catholic (Leo) and a Protestant (Martin). It is not intended to be an exhaustive argument but rather to help Catholics see that there is strong Patristic evidence for the early Church's belief in the authority of the Pope.

Special thanks to Madeline McCourt for her assistance in editing this article.

 


 

Martin: I’ve heard it said that the early Church gave unique authority to the Bishop of Rome, but honestly, I just don’t see it. To me, it seems like a later development rather than something the early Christians actually believed.

Leo: That’s an understandable concern, and one I’ve heard before. But if we take an honest look at the writings of the early Church Fathers, they seem to say something very different. Let’s start with Ignatius of Antioch. He wrote around A.D. 110 and called the Church of Rome the one that “holds the presidency.” Doesn’t that suggest a kind of leadership role?

Martin: Not necessarily. When Ignatius says that Rome “holds the presidency,” he could be referring to its importance as the capital of the empire, not as some kind of spiritual authority.

Leo: That’s an interesting point, but Ignatius doesn’t frame it that way. He’s writing to a church, not the emperor or the civic authorities. And he specifically praises the Roman Church for its spiritual character, saying it’s “worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing.” Moreover, he commends them for teaching others and instructing the faithful. That’s not a description of political power—it’s spiritual authority (Letter to the Romans 1:1, 3:1).

Martin: Even so, Ignatius doesn’t explicitly say that the Roman Church has authority over other churches. He’s being respectful, but respect isn’t the same as submission.

Leo: Fair enough, but let’s consider Pope Clement I. Around A.D. 80, he wrote to the church in Corinth to address a serious dispute. He doesn’t just offer advice—he commands them to reinstate their leaders and warns them that disobedience to his letter would put them in “no small danger.” Clement even claims to be speaking “through the Holy Spirit” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63). Why would a bishop in Rome have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a church in Greece unless there was an acknowledged authority?

Martin: Maybe Corinth respected Clement’s wisdom, but that doesn’t mean they recognized him as having jurisdiction over them. He could have been acting as a wise elder, not as a pope.

Leo: That’s possible, but Clement’s tone doesn’t suggest he’s merely offering advice. He writes as someone with the authority to settle the matter definitively. And we see this pattern again with later bishops of Rome. Take Pope Victor, who excommunicated the churches in Asia Minor over the date of Easter. Other bishops appealed for peace, but they didn’t deny that Victor had the authority to make such a decision (Eusebius, Church History 5:23:1–24:11). If the early Church didn’t recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome, why didn’t they challenge his right to excommunicate?

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
December 14, 2024
post photo preview
13 Rules for the Spiritual Life by St. John of the Cross

While reading the Mass readings in my Magnificat this evening, I came across a beautiful excerpt from St. John of the Cross. I won’t share the entire passage, as writing it out would take some time, but it’s the kind of text that reads like a series of aphorisms. The only thing I’ve added are the numbers, to present his words more clearly.

St. John of the Cross, pray for us.

  1. The further you withdraw from earthly things the closer you approach heavenly things.

  2. Whoever knows how to die in all will have life in all.

  3. Abandon evil, do good, and seek peace.

  4. Anyone who complains or grumbles is not perfect, nor even a good Christian.

  5. The humble are those who hide in their own nothingness and know how to abandon themselves to God.

  6. If you desire to be perfect, sell your will, give it to the poor in spirit.

  7. Those who trust in themselves are worse than the devil.

  8. Those who do not love their neighbor abhor God.

  9. Anyone who does things lukewarmly is close to falling.

  10. Whoever flees prayer flees all that is good.

  11. Conquering the tongue is better than fasting on bread and water.

  12. Suffering for Gopd is better than working miracles.

  13. As for trials, the more the better. What does anyone know who doesn’t know how to suffer for Christ.

May the wisdom of St. John of the Cross inspire us to strive for holiness and draw closer to Christ, following his example of humility, prayer, and trust in God. Which of his insights struck you the most?

Read full Article
December 12, 2024
post photo preview
Mother of God? A Socratic Conversation on Mary’s Role in Salvation

Morning, all.

Today I’ll attempt a socratic dialogue on Mary as Theotokos, or "Mother of God."

James is the Protestant, Thomas is the Catholic.

 


 

James: Thomas, I gotta say, I don’t get how you can call Mary the “Mother of God.”

Thomas: Alright?

James: I mean, how can a finite human being possibly be the mother of the infinite God? It doesn’t make sense—unless you’re elevating Mary to some sort of divine status.

Thomas: Well, let me ask you: do you agree that Mary is the mother of Jesus?

James: Obviously, yes.

Thomas: And do you agree that Jesus is God?

James: Of course. He’s fully God and fully man.

Thomas: Then logically, Mary is the Mother of God. She isn’t the mother of His divine nature—that’s eternal and uncreated, which I think is where you’re getting stuck. But she is the mother of Jesus, the one person who is both fully God and fully man. The logic is simple and unavoidable:

  1. Mary is the mother of Jesus.

  2. Jesus is God.

  3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

James: I don’t know… it feels like another invention by the Church to give Mary too much attention. And it’s nowhere in Scripture.

Thomas: True, the title “Mother of God” isn’t explicitly in Scripture, but neither are terms like “Trinity,” “Hypostatic Union,” or even “Bible.” The title is a theological conclusion drawn from Scripture, not something made up later. Take Luke 1:43, for instance. Elizabeth calls Mary “the mother of my Lord.” In the context of Luke’s Gospel, “Lord” is clearly a title for God.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
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