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 #12: Does Victor Hugo’s Claude Frollo Character Convey a Solid Argument Against Priestly Celibacy… or Not?

Last week, I made a post on “The Hunchback of Notre Dame”/“Notre-Dame de Paris”, in which I dissected the relationships Esmeralda has with Frollo, the novel’s version of Phoebus, Quasimodo, and Disney’s version of Phoebus. For this next post, I would like to deconstruct the common talking point, in which the main villain Claude Frollo is framed as Victor Hugo’s prime argument against priestly celibacy, then share my contrasting take on it.

Firstly, Victor Hugo’s original characterization of Claude Frollo has many more sympathetic layers than his Disney animated counterpart. The book’s version of Claude Frollo starts out as a more good-hearted person. When the deformed Romani child Quasimodo is abandoned by his mother, Claude willingly takes him in, being reminded of his own orphaned baby brother named Jehan Frollo. Claude diligently educates Quasimodo, even improvising a form of sign language when the bells take a toll on Quasi’s hearing. He looks after Jehan Frollo too, feeling pressured to not only act as Jehan’s older brother, but also be the father figure that Claude lost and Jehan never knew. However, Claude Frollo becomes lonesome. Quasimodo’s appearance dooms him to have no life outside Notre Dame’s bell tower. Jehan also grows up into an ungrateful debaucher, who treats Claude with the same contempt as the Prodigal Son towards his father, without a redemptive ending. Meanwhile, Claude Frollo’s Disney animated counterpart is more villainous from the start. He kills Quasimodo’s mother, raises Quasimodo grudgingly, lies to him about how his mother abandoned him, and shows no familial attachments. And while the book’s Frollo is prejudiced against the Romani population, believing them to be unholy heathens, the Disney animated Frollo has a more explicitly defined goal of exterminating all the Romani in Paris.

But one of the most notable differences between the two versions of Claude Frollo is that the book version is a priest bound by celibacy, while the Disney animated version is a religious judge. In the book, Claude Frollo's parents groom him from boyhood into undertaking the priesthood, without him having any real choice in the matter nor the chance to understand relationships with women as anything other than a threat to his celibate vows. This contributes to him having an irrational fear of women, which drives him further into isolation and loneliness. From my recollection, when Frollo in the book becomes infatuated with the Romani street dancer Esmeralda, he is not only unsettled by his erupting physical desires, but also by an extreme emotional longing for her affections. This contrasts with the Disney animated film‘s Judge Claude Frollo. There, one is left to presume that Frollo’s celibacy is more self-imposed and that his infatuation does not go far beyond physical lust.

Some readers of Victor Hugo’s novel have interpreted that Frollo’s destructive lust for Esmeralda and his downward spiral catalyzed by it are heavily the fault of Catholic priests in that setting not being allowed to marry. This framing of priestly celibacy as the scapegoat has been similarly echoed in response to the infamous abuse scandals in the Catholic Church, which more recently came to light. In both cases, discussions have been raised about how priestly celibacy is a discipline and not dogma, whether that discipline should change, etc. In centuries prior to the novel’s setting, it was more normal to have married priests. And even today, there are some exceptions in the Church, such as married Anglican ministers converting to Catholicism and being ordained. Another example is in the Eastern Catholic Churches, where an already married man can be ordained as a priest, though he would not marry post-ordination.

While priestly celibacy in the story’s setting has not helped Claude Frollo, one should not overlook the many interior and exterior factors, other than the discipline itself, which led to Frollo’s downward spiral:

1.) Unlike Quasimodo, Frollo chooses to respond to his unrequited feelings towards Esmeralda with jealousy and selfishness. Quasi and Frollo are both lonesome recluses living in Notre Dame, who have been dealt bad hands and see Esmeralda as their potential source of happiness. When Esmeralda falls in love with Phoebus, Frollo stabs him in a jealous rage, leaving Esmeralda to be charged with witchcraft and Phoebus’ attempted murder. While Esmeralda does not desire Quasimodo back, the hunchback saves Esmeralda from execution, gives her sanctuary in Notre Dame, selflessly tries to bring Phoebus to her, and continues trying to protect her. Meanwhile, Frollo never offers to save Esmeralda, in any way that is not conditional on her becoming his lover… on top of being responsible for her predicament in the first place. And every time he speaks with Esmeralda, he wallows in self-pity. The closest he does to expressing pity for Esmeralda is when he commits self-harm, while listening to her torture.

2.) Frollo refuses to take responsibility for his own actions, out of pride, hypocrisy, and a growing resignation to fate over his own free will. He hardly ever accepts that he bears some fault and needs to repent no less than any other sinner. One thematically standout scene from the book involves him eyeing an inscription of the Greek word “Ananké”/“ANATKH”. It refers to the primordial goddess of destiny and necessity, as well as fate in general. Simultaneously observing a fly caught in a spider’s web, he begins to imagine himself as both the fly and the spider, doomed to a set course by his imbued wants, Satan’s machinations, and God’s plan. While a Calvinistic predestination is heretical to the Church, Frollo begins to increasingly blame his struggle with sin on God not protecting him from the devil and Esmeralda’s “bewitchment”. In the book, he even utters lines similar to the lyrics in Disney’s “Hellfire” song: “It's not my fault! (Mea culpa) I'm not to blame! (Mea culpa) It is the gypsy girl, the witch who set this flame! (Mea maxima culpa) It's not my fault! (Mea culpa) It’s in God's plan! (Mea culpa) He made the devil so much stronger than a man! (Mea maxima culpa)”.

3.) Even if Claude Frollo was married, it would not necessarily remove his deeply held prejudice against the Romani in Paris, nor his chance of still facing lustful temptations in some form. His prejudice is one reason why he has less qualms about persecuting Esmeralda and can easily convince himself that she is a witch. That same flaw could have still motivated him to commit or promote other malevolent actions against the Romani, if he had a spouse. And if he happened to still find Esmeralda desirable while married, then that bigotry and his now-adulterous thoughts could yield its own toxic mix.

4.) As mentioned before, Frollo is pretty much railroaded by his parents into the priesthood, with seemingly no real choice nor understanding of what he would be taking on. Supposing a married relationship could have helped him experience more love and not be so obsessively attached to Esmeralda, that could have been given to him without needing to abolish priestly celibacy. A third option would have been not pushing Frollo to become a priest in the first place. At least nowadays, I know some priests who dipped their toes into dating and romantic relationships first, before ultimately discerning their call to the priesthood and making that vow. Besides letting a would-be cleric better understand that decision, it could also provide a chance to discover if one’s calling is actually to marriage. In fact, I myself was even advised by my confessor and other Catholic mentors to have some experience with dating under my belt, before trying to definitively discern whether I am called to marriage or lifelong singlehood.

5.) It seems that Frollo has never had a chance to welcome and experience platonic relationships with people of the opposite gender, which is ironically how Quasimodo’s arc in the Disney version is resolved. In the Disney version, Quasimodo similarly experiences heartbreak, when he sees Esmeralda falling romantically in love with Phoebus rather than him. But then Quasi learns that he and Esmeralda can still love one another as best friends, making it not an all-or-nothing deal. As for the book version of Frollo, it appears he was never given a chance to see that as an option, thus making him fear relationships with all women as a threat to his celibate vows, plus contributing to his apparent “Madonna-whore complex”.

6.) It also seems Frollo could have really benefited from having philosophical works like Saint/Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”, which counterbalance the more cynical attitudes some early Church fathers expressed towards sexuality. Such writings might have encouraged him to see chastity in a light that emphasizes the dignity of the other person, a need to integrate the body’s desires with love, the parallels between marital love and the Holy Trinity, the original goodness of the body, and so on. If those observations were articulated and widely taught during the book’s setting, maybe Frollo would not have grown up fearing and repressing that part of himself. And he might have been more encouraged to think about how the person being lusted over is sinned against, rather than only viewing himself as the victim of his lustful thoughts. I even made a recent post in my “Proposing New Ways to Help Understand Chastity” series, where I share how I think those yearnings can still be a blessing for someone called to virginity or celibacy.

When one looks at the full character, it becomes clear just how many ways Claude Frollo’s tragic descent could have been avoided, through different choices and/or circumstances, without needing priestly celibacy to go away in the Catholic Church.

To say one last observation, when some people blame priestly celibacy as the main reason for fictional or real-life abuses, it both denies accountability on the priests’ part and features some of the same rhetorical DNA that makes up “rape culture”, homophobic prejudice, and other harmful mentalities. All too often, people have blamed abuse victims for supposedly dressing or acting immodestly. In the wake of McCarrick's scandal, I myself had to speak up for people, who were treated as inherently more liable to be predatory just for having same-sex attraction. And I have seen individuals in communities like the Evangelical Christians push toxic attitudes, where a wife can be deemed at fault for her husband’s immorality, if she is not being his “outlet” enough. What do all these mindsets have in common? They blame someone’s real or imagined misbehavior on them having an awakened and un-indulged desire. That is, rather than the person choosing to treat others as objects to covet, subjugate, torment, etc. out of their own free will.

Overall, while the prevalence of priestly celibacy is a discipline that the Catholic Church may change in the future, I doubt this hypothetical change will be motivated by real or fictional examples of clerical abuse. Victor Hugo’s Claude Frollo is indeed a compelling and tragic literary character, but my analysis illustrates how there are many other factors ultimately at fault for his demise. There are many celibate people, who are well-adjusted and can live out their calling, without making an enemy out of their passions. Both marriage and clergy life are self-giving vocations, which demand great commitment and personal sacrifice. So it is often helpful when a man has the freedom to go all in for either one or the other (especially in the current Latin Catholic Church). For a long time, practical reasons like this have contributed to the discipline of priestly celibacy being the norm, and it will likely continue to do so for a long time in the future.

For this post’s supplementary material, I am featuring the clip of “Hellfire” again, the aforementioned post in my series on chastity, a National Catholic Register article clarifying married priests in Eastern Catholicism, and Cinema Therapy’s video on the Disney Version of Frollo…

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

2.) “Proposing New Ways to Help Understand Chastity — Part 5: How the Appetite Might Be a Blessing Even for Those Called to Celibacy or Virginity”
https://mattfradd.locals.com/post/6135837/proposing-new-ways-to-help-understand-chastity-part-5-how-the-appetite-might-be-a-blessing-e

3.) NCR’s “5 Myths about Married Priests in Eastern Catholicism”
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/5-myths-about-married-priests-in-eastern-catholicism

4.) Cinema Therapy’s “Villain Therapy: FROLLO from The Hunchback of Notre Dame”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGFmEJcTwwQ

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