A final objection remained. If the Blessed Virgin did not contract original sin, why did she incur its penalties? Why did she have to suffer? There were some of these penalties which might have been advantageous to Mary, and others which could not have been, replied Scotus. What purpose would there have been in the stain of original sin? It is quite another thing with the afflictions and sufferings of this life, as they are sources of merit. Christ could, therefore, fulfill His office of Redeemer in Mary’s regard and yet leave her these kinds of penalties. We have here a pregnant thought of Scotus if we correlate the idea with the role of Mary as "Socia Christi Redemptoris,” or "Co-Redemptrix,” so much stressed by theologians today. As the new Eve, Mary had to be close to Jesus, the new Adam, to share His atoning destiny.
In Scotus’ own words: "The argument taken from the sufferings of Mary is inconclusive, because a mediator can reconcile someone in such a way that the penalties which are not useful to him are taken away, but the useful punishments are left. Now original guilt would not have been useful to Mary, whereas the temporal sufferings were useful because she merited by them.” 45
Having thus removed the objections brought forward by his opponents against the Immaculate Conception, and firmly established the possibility of this noble privilege of Mary, Scotus sums up his own position in this modest and reserved form: "To the question proposed I answer: God could have arranged that Mary was never in original sin; He could also have allowed her to be in sin for a single moment; and He could have permitted her to be in sin for a while and purified her ultimately.” 46
21
