You're wrong. The Canon clearly speaks to all men regarding Adam's sin.
"" If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption,"
"Moreover, the argument against original sin from Ezech. 18:20 has no force. Here is St. Thomas' rebuttal of your error (SCG 4.51):"
Well let's see.
"But any sin touching the specific nature itself may without difficulty be propagated from one to another, as the specific nature is imparted by one to others [by generation].
Nope. Man was made in the image and likeness of God. Ezekiel 18 is as clear as a bright sunny day. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
The sin of the father does not effect the nature of the son! There's no mystery and it's not genetic. It's a circular argument he's making from a false claim.
"and the due order of the parts of his soul:"
Thomas is referring to heart and mind here, when he speaks of the soul. The soul though, is the Heavenly body of a man's spirit. No one's heart and mind was effected by the sin of Adam.
"As for the argument from St. John 9:3, let St. Augustine answer you (Tractate 44 on the Gospel of St. John): Fine
"From what evil does an evil mind abstain, even though the eyes are closed? He could not see, but he knew how to think, and perchance to lust after something which his blindness hindered him from attaining, and so still in his heart to be judged by the searcher of hearts.
The searcher of hearts said, neither this man sinned, nor his parents. As, for the evil mind Augustine attributes to the man, that was given for the same reason the Pharisees blurted out that he was steeped in sin from birth when the man failed to lie about the man who healed him. According to Augustine, the scared blind man should have lie in fear of what the authorities would do to him.
Your misreading of Ezechiel makes nonsense of all of Scripture. In your view, man never needed a Savior. Actually Ezechiel is clearly talking about the sins of men in his day (18:1-3), not about Adam's loss of the gifts of immortality, righteousness, etc. The righteousness of God was an unmerited gift and it was lost as a punishment for Adam's sin, and can only be restored by the grace of Christ. "Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us: that we might be made the justice of God in him." (1 Cor. 5:21). Adam's sons never deserved this gift of God's own life and so it was no injustice on His part not to give it to them at conception.
The soul is not a "Heavenly body". It is the form of the body.
As regards John 9:3, apparently you also believe that men are without sin in this world. When Christ taught his own disciples to pray that their sins would be forgiven, one wonders how this sinlessness could be possible without the grace of Christ! Was it in vain that the apostle Paul wrote to the Romans: "all have sinned and do need the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23)? Christ is just saying that the blindness of the man and his parents was not a result of any sin either of the man or his parents "but that the works of God should be made manifest in him". That is the obvious contextual reading - there is no need to jerk it out of context and pretend that for the salvation of man there is no need for "grace and truth" through our Lord Jesus Christ (St. John 1:17), since men can apparently live sinless and righteous lives through their own efforts.
According to Augustine, the scared blind man should have lie in fear of what the authorities would do to him.
There isn't any reason for the man to have lied, even under your contorted interpretation of St. Augustine and St. John. Or perhaps you are trying to say that St. Augustine believed that the blind man should have lied because, since he was a sinful man, he could do nothing but lie. This is a really dumb conclusion and it certainly has nothing to do with actual Augustinism.
I suggest you read St. Augustine's works refuting this Pelagian nonsense you're spouting.