You've been given the Scripture on this thread so I'll try another approach.
Will Rome's opinion work for you?
True, this wouldn't be the first time a Roman Catholic apologist has displayed ignorance of his/her own catechism. Understandable, given the poor catechizing of so many Roman Catholics, but nonetheless, sad that it occurs so often.
FROM MARK'S OWN RCC CATECHISM...
403 - Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.
Did you get that, Mark? Adam's sin. From Adam. Adam "transmitted to us a sin which we are all born afflicted."
This is pretty basic stuff, Mark. Christians of all denominations understand it. Aren't you pleased you now have the opportunity to join them?
(And did you catch whom your catechism is using as reference, Mark? Are papists now Paulists?)
You've been given the Scripture on this thread so I'll try another approach.
Romans 5:12 does not say that original sin is passed from the father only, in spite of your gloating about women. Let's see what you have now.
403 - Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.
Where does it say that sin is transmitted from father only to offspring, leaving the mother out of it? It doesn't. The Catechism is in accord with the Bible. So where does that leave the Bahble Bleevers (tm)? On the outside of Christianity looking in, right? When two women's eggs are combined (in the near future) creating a human, are you saying that the resulting girl will be sinless since she has no father? Are you saying that Mary cannot be sinless, but your Reformed girl can?
This is pretty basic stuff, Mark. Christians of all denominations understand it. Aren't you pleased you now have the opportunity to join them?
In order to prove something, you actually have to prove it. Your posts are in error and do not reflect Christianity. They do not even reflect Scripture. Prove to us that sin is transmitted through the father only using Scripture, if you please. You were the one who bragged openly that you learned this through the FR RF. Where does your learning come from? Where are the proofs? Where is the Scripture that you guys say that you only follow? You aren't kidding us on this are you?
(And did you catch whom your catechism is using as reference, Mark? Are papists now Paulists?)
No; we reverence St. Paul. We worship God. We have not reversed it as so many children of the Reformation have.