Pray for our enemies... but not the Devil.

Sympathy for the Devil? Nah.

...Should we should pray for the devil?

Deacon Greg Kandra from Pateheos': The Deacon's Bench seems to think that we should. In fact, he goes a step further and tells us that Jesus prays for the Devil, as well.

To answer the last question: as far as I know, the gospels do not give us an example of Christ ever refusing anyone forgiveness. I’m not aware of any example of Jesus personally withholding his love from anyone, either.

All I can go on is today’s gospel: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Whether or not Jesus would forgive Lucifer — and, frankly, it’s not for us to know how Christ or His Father would ultimately judge anyone — he almost certainly loves him and prays for him, and all those who fall under his influence.

Didn’t he do as much on the cross?

I think he is wrong about Catholic doctrine here.

···»«···

Angelic intellect

Should we pray for the Devil, and does Jesus pray for Lucifer? I don't think so. Angelic will is quite different from human free-will, isn't it? The Angel's have knowledge that is finite and complete, hence the reason that Satan was cast down when he and 1/3 of all angels "questioned" God.

What good does it do to pray for the Devil when his "fate" is sealed? Is there any chance at redemption?

Our human mind comes into possession of knowledge by a gradual and laborious process. It requires first of all a number of years of physical development for the proper operation. It rises slowly from single sensible perceptions to general ideas of things and finally to abstract truth. The Angelic intellect, entirely free and independent from matter and senses, needs no such development. It is in the full possession of its power from the very beginning of its existence. There is no need of gathering elements of knowledge bit by bit, of adding ideas to ideas in order to discover truth, as is the case with us. Having been created in the full perfection of its nature, the Angelic mind neither develops by gradual growth nor does it suffer any decay; its knowledge does not pass by consecutive steps from the haze of the morning to the splendor of the noonday brightness. From the beginning of its existence it was able to grasp the objects within its own sphere and advert to them without any fatigue in the process, moving in the dazzling light of the purely spiritual world as in its proper element.

Being by nature higher than man and much closer to God, the Angels receive more of His light, that is, a greater power of understanding, infused ideas, mind-pictures representing external objects, the spiritual and material creatures of this universe.

(Taken from The Angels, by Fr. Pascal P. Parente. TAN Books & Publishers, 1994)

This being the case, then isn't it impossible for the Devil to repent? (Note: this is a very different question from "Can God ever forgive the Devil - is his Mercy limitless?) I don't think he ever could? The Angelic mind is so complete, it knows the full analysis of its decisions at the moment of conception (of thought) that it would never vacillate or hedge on a prior decision. The free will of the Angels, accompanied by their finite knowledge allow no room for learning, therefore there seems to be no way for the Devil to learn from his wicked ways.

The angels, like men, were given free will. They were able to choose to serve God or not. Unlike men, they cannot vacillate back and forth, but rather see everything to its logical conclusion. If they were to turn against God, it would be a permanent state. Therefore when many of the angels decided to follow Lucifer, the highest of the angels, in his rebellion against God ("I will not serve"), they were cast into Hell. They would not ever repent, their wills being set on evil.

In short, there was more malice in their sin, because of the greater clarity of understanding. They are not confused, ignorant, and weak as humans are.

St. Thomas has discussed the angels at length in his famous work, the Summa Theologica. Since the 1300's, his teaching has always been given first place at the seminaries and universities. Countless popes and councils over the centuries have made firm recommendations to make extensive use of the Summa Theologica.

The Angelic Doctor

A summary of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, explains the grace and glory of angels:

62. GRACE AND GLORY OF THE ANGELS

1. Although the angels were created in heaven, and with natural happiness or beatitude, they were not created in glory, that is, in the possession of the beatific vision.

2. To possess God in the beatific vision the angels require grace.

3. And, while the angels were created in the state of sanctifying grace, this was not the grace which confirms the angels in glory. Had the angels been created with the confirming grace, none of them could have fallen, and some did fall.

4. Angels were created in grace, and by using this grace in their first act of charity (which is the friendship and love of God) they merited the beatific vision and heavenly beatitude.

5. Instantly upon meriting the beatitude of heaven, the angels possessed it. The angelic nature, being purely spiritual, is not suited for steps and degrees of progress to perfection, as is the case with man.

6. The higher angels, those of more perfect nature and keener intelligence, have greater gifts of grace than other angels; for their more perfect powers turn them more mightily and effectively to God than is the case with angels of lesser capacity.

7. The heavenly beatitude enjoyed by the angels does not destroy their nature or their natural operations; hence the natural knowledge and love of angels remain in them after they are beatified.

8. Beatified angels cannot sin. Their nature finds perfect fulfillment in the vision of God; it is disposed towards God exclusively. There is in beatified angels no possible tendency away from God, and therefore no possible sin.

9. Angels who possess God in beatific vision cannot be increased or advanced in beatitude. A capacity that is perfectly filled up cannot be made more full.

This explains their ability to choose God and to choose Heaven. It also explains how Lucifer could choose to question God, and to reject Heaven by his own will. A further summary Aquinas explains Demons and the Devil are not naturally wicked though, they are not pure evil. He further explains the sin of the fallen angels:

63. SIN OF THE FALLEN ANGELS

1. A rational creature (that is, a creature with intellect and will) can sin. If it be unable to sin, this is a gift of grace, not a condition of nature. While angels were yet unbeatified they could sin. And some of them did sin.

2. The sinning angels (or demons) are guilty of all sins in so far as they lead man to commit every kind of sin. But in the bad angels themselves there could be no tendency to fleshly sins, but only to such sins as can be committed by a purely spiritual being, and these sins are two only: pride and envy.

3. Lucifer who became Satan, leader of the fallen angels, wished to be as God. This prideful desire was not a wish to be equal to God, for Satan knew by his natural knowledge that equality of creature with creator is utterly impossible. Besides, no creature actually desires to destroy itself, even to become something greater. On this point man sometimes deceives himself by a trick of imagination; he imagines himself to be another and greater being, and yet it is himself that is somehow this other being. But an angel has no sense-faculty of imagination to abuse in this fashion. The angelic intellect, with its clear knowledge, makes such self-deception impossible. Lucifer knew that to be equal with God, he would have to be God, and he knew perfectly that this could not be. What he wanted was to be as God; he wished to be like God in a way not suited to his nature, such as to create things by his own power, or to achieve final beatitude without God's help, or to have command over others in a way proper to God alone.

4. Every nature, that is every essence as operating, tends to some good. An intellectual nature tends to good in general, good under its common aspects, good as such. The fallen angels therefore are not naturally evil.

5. The devil did not sin in the very instant of his creation. When a perfect cause makes a nature, the first operation of that nature must be in line with the perfection of its cause. Hence the devil was not created in wickedness. He, like all the angels, was created in the state of sanctifying grace.

6. But the devil, with his companions, sinned immediately after creation. He rejected the grace in which he was created, and which he was meant to use, as the good angels used it, to merit beatitude. If, however, the angels were not created in grace (as some hold) but had grace available as soon as they were created, then it may be that some interval occurred between the creation and the sin of Lucifer and his companions.

7. Lucifer, chief of the sinning angels, was probably the highest of all the angels. But there are some who think that Lucifer was highest only among the rebel angels.

8. The sin of the highest angel was a bad example which attracted the other rebel angels, and, to this extent, was the cause of their sin.

9. The faithful angels are a greater multitude than the fallen angels. For sin is contrary to the natural order. Now, what is opposed to the natural order occurs less frequently, or in fewer instances, than what accords with the natural order.

Where we are left now, is it then possible for the demons to repent and choose good and choose God? I don't think by our understanding, if it is correct, that the demons can ever repent. Again, this is different than the question of would God impart His mercy upon them, if they did? What I am saying is, that they won't ever repent and choose God, therefore it would seem that we need not pray for the Devil or demons.

64. STATE OF THE FALLEN ANGELS

1. The fallen angels did not lose their natural knowledge by their sin; nor did they lose their angelic intellect.

2. The fallen angels are obstinate in evil, unrepentant, inflexibly determined in their sin. This follows from their nature as pure spirits, for the choice of a pure spirit is necessarily final and unchanging.

3. Yet we must say that there is sorrow in the fallen angels, though not the sorrow of repentance. They have sorrow in the affliction of knowing that they cannot attain beatitude; that there are curbs upon their wicked will; that men, despite their efforts, may get to heaven.

4. The fallen angels are engaged in battling against man's salvation and in torturing lost souls in hell. The fallen angels that beset man on earth, carry with them their own dark and punishing atmosphere, and wherever they are they endure the pains of hell.

In other words, demons will never repent, and the only thing they are sorry about is the fact they will never obtain beatitude. Therefore why pray for the Devil or his minions? There really seems to be no point. Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica sums it up in one reply:

Objection 2: Further, since God's mercy is infinite, it is greater than the demons' malice, which is finite. But no one returns from the malice of sin to the goodness of justice save through God's mercy. Therefore the demons can likewise return from their state of malice to the state of justice.

Reply to Objection 2: God's mercy delivers from sin those who repent. But such as are not capable of repenting, cling immovably to sin, and are not delivered by the Divine mercy.

So then, it would seem we should not pray for the Devil, not because it is wrong, but because it wouldn't make any difference? Or would it? I say no. But does it logically follow then that it is wrong to love the Devil? Should we not listen to the commandment and love our enemies? He is after all, are biggest enemy is he not?

···»«···

to love...or not to love

But isn't love an act of the will? It is a desire for another to achieve an ultimate love of God, isnt it? It would seem that under the definition of what love is, there is no need to love the Devil. Although there is some intrinsic goodness in the the charity aspect of love, charitable love cannot be mutually excluded from its joinder to the hope of salvation for that person. [Link to reference: New Advent] So therefore, there need not be a reason to love the Devil. This does not mean that we should hate him, but we surely need not waste our time loving him correct? Again, it would simply be a waste of time; it wouldn't give him nor us any benefits.

More simply put, ultimately, we are asked to love others in a hopes that they will ultimately love God right? If the Devil can't love, read: be in the presence of God, it is unnecessary to love Satan. In fact, if we think we are to love Satan, I would argue that we have a misunderstanding of who he is, and what his choice meant.

There is an argument to be made that God loves the Devil to some degree because he created him. But I would argue that although that would normally require us to love the Devil as well, because we understand that there is no way to change the Devil's will, so as to make him love God - there is no need for us to love him.

Therefore, I respectfully disagree with Deacon Kandra. I don't think that Jesus prays for the Devil, there is no purpose for it. I also don't think we are required to do so either, or really to love him, again there being no point. I don't think that it is wrong, to love the Devil, in fact we might learn something tangental from the exercise of doing so, but I don't think we get something directly from it. I would argue that we could better spend our time loving those under the influence of the Devil, and praying for those who are entrapped by his vices and the souls in purgatory.


PS.
I am very open to someone much smarter than I to show me the error of my ways and prove me wrong.

UPDATE:
Msgr. Charles Pope has recently posted something that is germane to this discussion:
Does God loves the souls in Hell? Then why do they suffer?
It isn't exactly about praying for the Devil, or us as humans loving those in Hell, but it does touch on some aspects of this post. He is also much smarter than I, and well worth the read.

†††