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
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
Life on the Struggle Bus - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

These past two months have been a bit brutal : ) Sleep, in which I typically indulge sparingly (not by choice), has been practically impossible. At a certain point, it's like: "What's going on?" This video narrates my attempt to make sense of a stressful time. . . . Where is the Lord in the midst of anxiety?

00:21:02
Jesus, Our Refuge
00:03:39
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

Hello, all! New here and wanted to introduce myself. I'm Amy Grey, a wife (10 years in) and mom of four kids in the midwest USA. I converted from an Anabaptist (Mennonite) background when I was 13 years old. It's hard to describe how much I love theology and philosophy. A little intense for most! Happy to be here. Any other Mennonite to Catholic converts? There's not too many of us out there!

4 hours ago

I tell you, there is something different about current teenagers. On one hand we see all these confused blue haired non-gendered angry promiscous youth.
On the other hand there are very traditional and Godly teens.
Recently, after some months of my teen daughter meeting this boy, he called my husband to ask him for permission to officially ask my daughter to be his girlfriend.
Then my other daughter started to meet with this boy who after a few weeks told her than they should meet with their spiritual leader, pastor (he is Lutheran) and our priest to ask them for advise how to have a Christ centered relationship.
They are 16-18 years old.
My mind is blown.

I come from supposedly very Catholic country - Poland. Unfortunately communism made it very secular and even Catholics don't ever talk about God and Godly life, not in public, not among themselves.

I am very hopeful that something is changing.

Meme Monday!

Go! Go! Go!

post photo preview
post photo preview
Big Chesterton Cigars Event! (Fri 25 April - Sun 27 April)

Join us for an unforgettable weekend of cigars, conversation, music, and meaningful reflection at Chesterton’s Cigars, April 25–27 in Steubenville, OH. From live bands and inspiring lectures to a guided cigar tasting, this event will be a celebration of friendship, faith, and relaxation. I’ll be there, along with Dr. Scott Hahn and other special guests. Whether you come for the theology, the tobacco, or the camaraderie, there’ll be something for everyone. Come raise a glass—and a cigar—with us.

 

Friday, April 25th, 2025

 
6:00 PM – Evening Opening Prayer
Fr. Damian Ference will begin the evening with an opening prayer.
6:15 PM – Kickoff Speech by John Walker
John Walker will officially open the event with a speech, reflecting on the spirit of Chesterton’s and the significance of this cigar launch.
6:45 PM - 8:00 PM – Mingling & Cigars
Enjoy an evening of conversation, cigars, and great company as we kick off the weekend.
8:00 PM - 10:00 PM – Jazz Night
A performance by Chesterton’s “House” Jazz Band that performs here on a weekly basis for our popular Jazz Nights. Comprised of all local musicians
10:00 PM - 11:00 PM – Live Music by Emma & David Kruise
A live performance from Emma and David Kruise
11:00 PM - 1:00 AM – open mic/mingling until close
 

Saturday, April 26th, 2025

 
8:00 AM – Mass at St. Peter’s
425 N 4th St, Steubenville, OH
9:00 AM – Breakfast, Coffee & Cigars
Featuring the Chesterton Cigar and Coffee from Leonardo’s Coffee House in Steubenville
11:30 AM – Pipe Tobacco & Tin Fish Luncheon
Tins and tins! Enjoy conversation over a pipe and some tinned fish w/ accoutrements
12:30 PM - 3:00 PM - lectures and discussion
Lectures and readings from special guests of Chesterton’s including Joe Grabowski, VP of Evangelization and Mission at the Chesterton Society, John Walker
3:00 PM - 5:00 PM - break
5:00 PM - 7:00 PM – Dinner
Dine at one of Steubenville’s local favorites before the evening’s festivities.
7:00 PM – Evening Prayer and kick-off
7:15 PM - Special guest appearance
7:30 PM – Panel & Tasting Event
A slot dedicated to the story of Chesterton’s founding, the inspiration behind the Pints with Aquinas and Chesterton’s Cigar, and a guided cigar tasting.
 

Sunday, April 27th, 2025

 
10:00 AM – Mass at St. Peter’s
Close the weekend with Sunday Mass at St. Peter’s Catholic Church.
11:00 AM - 3:00 PM – Brunch & Farewell Gathering
A grand finale to the weekend—join us for raw oysters, Bloody Marys, and other delectable brunch offerings to wrap up the weekend.
Read full Article
post photo preview
The Queen and The Witch (A Fairy Tale)

I read fairy tales to my kids all the time, so I figured I’d try writing one myself. I’m a bit embarrassed to share it—I really want it to be good (or at least decent), but I’m not sure it is.

Here’s what I do know: if I don’t post it now, it’ll probably sit in my drafts until I forget it even exists. But if I share it publicly, I’ll have to own it—and that makes it way more likely I’ll keep editing until I’m happy with it, maybe even write more.

So if you’re up for it, I’d love your feedback. Critiques, suggestions, or just letting me know what you liked—it all helps. Thanks for reading.


In a certain kingdom, in a certain land, there lived a boy named Peter. Though the world called him a prince, he cared more for mud puddles and beetles than for gold or grandeur. Each day, he wandered the royal gardens, collecting feathers, following ant trails, and speaking with birds in a language that only he and they knew.

One morning, his mother—the Queen—kissed his brow and knelt to look him in the eyes. She wore her cloak of sapphire and silver, and her voice was steady but kind. “I must go away for three days, my love,” she said. “There are matters in the outer provinces that need my attention. While I’m gone, stay within the garden walls. Speak only with the wind, the birds, and those who belong here. Everything you need is here at home. And above all, do not wander into the dark wood.”

Then she rose, mounted her horse, and rode out through the castle gates, her cloak trailing like a ribbon of blue light.

That first morning, after the Queen had left, Peter found himself near the edge of the royal gardens. The trees of the dark woods stood just beyond the wall, tall and still, their trunks fading into shadow.

He knew he shouldn’t. He could almost hear his mother’s voice: Stay within the garden walls, my love... But the air felt different—cooler, quieter. And then, on the breeze, he heard it: a female voice, low and lilting, like a lullaby she was singing to herself, not meant for anyone to hear.

“Give me your eyes, and I’ll show you the stars.
Give me your heart, and I’ll sing you to sleep.
Give me your name, and you’ll never be hungry again.”

Peter stopped. The voice was soft, but close.

“Who’s there?” he whispered. No one answered. Only the leaves stirred.

His feet moved before he realized—one step, then another, as if the trees were pulling him forward. The garden wall faded behind him. The light dimmed. Shadows thickened. And then, between two trunks, he saw her. Cloaked in sapphire and silver, her face just visible in the dappled gloom. It was her—it had to be. His mother.

“Mother?” he called, relief blooming in his chest. He ran toward her.

She turned and smiled. Her voice was soft and sweet, but it clung to him, sticky and strange.

“Dearest,” she said, bending low, “give me your eyes, and I’ll show you the stars. The world is so dark, and you deserve to see its wonders as I do.”

For a moment, Peter wanted to believe her. But something in her face didn’t sit right, like a song played with one wrong note. Her shadow stretched the wrong way, and her breath smelled of rust.

He froze. The warmth draining from his body.

“You are not my Mother,” he said slowly. “And my Father is the King”

Her face began to blur, like the surface of a pond just after something moved through it. The blue of her cloak faded to dull gray, and her eyes lost their shine, darkening to something flat and cold. Then, without a word, she turned and slipped away into the wind, as if she had never been there at all.

The next morning, Peter sat beneath the old maple tree at the center of the garden, staring at the grass, twisting a fallen leaf between his fingers. “Did I dream it?” he asked aloud. “Did I imagine the woods? The Woman? The song?” The garden made no reply. Maybe he had fallen asleep by the wall. Maybe it had all been a strange sort of dream. He was just starting to believe that—when he heard it again. The same strange tune, drifting from the trees.

“Give me your eyes, and I’ll show you the stars.
Give me your heart, and I’ll sing you to sleep.
Give me your name, and you’ll never be hungry again.”

Before he realized it, Peter had stepped beyond the garden wall, drawn deep into the dark wood—as though his feet belonged to someone else, as though another will entirely guided his steps—until he found himself standing beneath the crooked elm, where she waited. Her silver robe hung limp and wet, her hair tangled with leaf and moss. Her hands were folded, and her voice, when she spoke, was barely more than a breath.

“Poor boy,” she murmured, not looking at him. “Give me your heart, and I’ll sing you to sleep.”

Peter felt drowsiness wash over him, tempting him to surrender—but then he shook himself awake, eyes clearing.

“You are not my mother,” he said firmly, “and my Father is the King.”

The witch's gentle expression twisted into a disappointed frown, and without another word, she faded into the shadows, leaving only silence behind.

On the third day, the witch returned, her enchanting song luring Peter back into the dark forest.

“Give me your eyes, and I’ll show you the stars.
Give me your heart, and I’ll sing you to sleep.
Give me your name, and you’ll never be hungry again.”

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
What the Heck Is Antisemitism, Anyway?
(A Socratic Dialogue)

I recently posted this quotation from Pope Paul VI to Youtube:

“Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.”

And, oh man, was the feedback fun. Within minutes, I was accused of everything from cozying up to The Daily Wire to desperately chasing subscribers to—and maybe I shouldn’t be surprised—being under the influence of Jewish money.

But one question kept coming up: What is antisemitism? One commenter put it this way:

“How about having a clear definition of what the word means? Is that too much to ask? Because quite frankly, every time I look it up, it's never really clear. Words have meaning. Or at least they should. If the M word for taking a life was used, and someone is accused of it, everyone knows what it means. But imagine it's not clear what it means. And someone out of nowhere accused someone of it, but the definition keeps changing or is not clear—what then?”

Fair enough. So, to help clarify, I’ve written a Socratic dialogue exploring what I antisemitism is—and what it isn’t.

One quick note before you read on—I assure you, I’m writing this in good faith. I know this topic is deeply important to many people, including my fellow Catholics. This article is simply my attempt to articulate what seems obvious to me, not a middle finger at those who disagree.

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