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
Our response to the death of Pope Francis
00:01:29
On the Lookout for Sins of Speech - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

Hello! I'm writing a book at present on sins of speech for Emmaus Road. I've been thinking a lot about cultivating healthy habits of communication, so just thought I'd share a few thoughts. Prayers for you during this Holy Week!

00:20:01
The Practice of the Presence of God - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

There are various different prayer practices that people have used in the tradition as a way of remaining in the presence of God--the practice of the presence of God (or recollection) is just one. In this video, I explain a little how it helps us to connect the dots between earthly life and heavenly realities.

00:19:43
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
Meme Monday

… okay. This isn’t a meme. Just my heart’s deepest longing. Also I’m aware that it’s Wednesday.

post photo preview
Daniel O’Connor

Apparently, Daniel has recorded a video about me canceling him from my show. I haven’t watched it, nor will I, But I was shown a screenshot of an edited message from me to him which I think makes my communication with him seem harsher than it was. Here is his version, mine is beneath. I wish Daniel well.

April 24, 2025

I have resigned from my job. I would appreciate some prayers as I start a new phase in my life. I'll be looking for my next programming gig shortly. Thanks.

post photo preview
Candor and Charity: Reflecting on a Papacy

In a recent article by Archbishop Charles Chaput in First Things, he reflects on the legacy of Pope Francis in this moment between pontificates. He was both charitable and candid—two things we desperately need right now.

I have personal memories of Pope Francis that I greatly value: a friendly and generous working relationship at the 1997 Synod on America when we were both newly appointed archbishops; his personal welcome and warmth at Rome’s 2014 Humanum conference; and the extraordinary success of his 2015 visit to Philadelphia for the Eighth World Meeting of Families. He devoted himself to serving the Church and her people in ways that he felt the times demanded. As a brother in the faith, and a successor of Peter, he deserves our ongoing prayers for his eternal life in the presence of the God he loved.

There’s a real tenderness and respect here. And it’s a good example of how disagreement with a pontificate shouldn’t involve hostility toward the pope. Sadly—though not surprisingly—I’ve seen more than a little of that in comment sections online.

He continues:

Having said that, an interregnum between papacies is a time for candor. The lack of it, given today’s challenges, is too expensive. In many ways, whatever its strengths, the Francis pontificate was inadequate to the real issues facing the Church. He had no direct involvement in the Second Vatican Council and seemed to resent the legacy of his immediate predecessors who did; men who worked and suffered to incarnate the council’s teachings faithfully into Catholic life. His personality tended toward the temperamental and autocratic. He resisted even loyal criticism. He had a pattern of ambiguity and loose words that sowed confusion and conflict.

In the face of deep cultural fractures on matters of sexual behavior and identity, he condemned gender ideology but seemed to downplay a compelling Christian “theology of the body.” He was impatient with canon law and proper procedure. His signature project, synodality, was heavy on process and deficient in clarity. Despite an inspiring outreach to society’s margins, his papacy lacked a confident, dynamic evangelical zeal. The intellectual excellence to sustain a salvific (and not merely ethical) Christian witness in a skeptical modern world was likewise absent.

What the Church needs going forward is a leader who can marry personal simplicity with a passion for converting the world to Jesus Christ, a leader who has a heart of courage and a keen intellect to match it. Anything less won’t work.

I love that. “A leader with a passion for converting the world to Jesus Christ.” Amen!

May the Holy Spirit lead the cardinals in choosing our next pope. And may Pope Francis rest in the peace

Read full Article
post photo preview
The Pope is Dead

I got a text from my sister this morning: “The pope died.” I stood there for a moment just staring at the words. I then went to the internet, thinking maybe it was a rumor or a mistake.

But it wasn’t.

Pope Francis died this morning at the age of 88. He passed away in the Casa Santa Marta, the residence inside the Vatican where he had lived since his election in 2013. He had been suffering from a number of health issues in recent years, including a recent case of pneumonia.

His death marks the end of a 12-year papacy, and now the Church enters the period known as sede vacante—the seat of Peter is vacant. Cardinals from around the world will soon gather in Rome for a conclave to elect the next pope. No one knows who it will be, but we should be praying: that the Holy Spirit guide their decision, and that the next pope be a faithful shepherd for the Church in these difficult times.

Pray this prayer with me for the soul of Pope Francis:

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May his souls and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Read full Article
post photo preview
7 Terrible Arguments For Atheism

I’ve heard plenty of arguments for atheism over the years—some thoughtful, some clever, and some… well, let’s just say I used to rattle off the worst of them back when I was an angsty 17-year-old agnostic.

Today I want to look at 7 terrible arguments for atheism—the kind that sound good at first but fall apart when you give them more than five seconds of thought.

1. "Who created God?"

This question misunderstands what Christians (and classical theists) mean by “God.” God, by definition, is uncaused—the necessary, self-existent being who causes everything else. Asking “Who created God?” is like asking “What’s north of the North Pole?” or “If your brother is a bachelor, what’s his wife’s name?” It’s a category mistake. The question only makes sense if God were a contingent being—just one more thing in the universe that needed a cause. But He isn’t. He’s the reason anything exists at all.

2. "I just believe in one less god than you."

This is clever-sounding but logically shallow. The difference between atheism and theism isn’t about the number of gods one believes in—it’s about the kind of being we’re talking about. Christians reject all finite, tribal, man-made gods too. The Christian claim is not that God is just one more being among many, but that God is Being Itself—the necessary, uncaused source of all reality. Saying, “I just believe in one less god than you,” is like saying, “I contend we’re both bachelors—I just have one less wife.” The difference between one and none isn’t minor—it’s everything. Atheism isn’t a slight variation on theism; it’s a rejection of the entire foundation of existence.

3. "Science has disproven 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