What kind of Catholic argument is that?! Many people in Scripture have no sins attributed to them (the devout Ananias for one), while we cannot say that Hannah was not bodily assumed into Heaven, or that Jesus did not appear in America after His resurrection, etc.
However, that something could have happened is not a basis for any doctrine that asserts it did, and which hermeneutic would renders it an untenable doctrine.
But the absence of the mention of exceptions to the norm is an argument against the premise that one did, since the Holy Spirit mentions notable exceptions to the norm even among lesser figures. From extreme age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), strength (Samson), speed (Asahel), sterility (Hannah), a celibate marriage (David and Abishag), prolonged celibacy (Anna), birth by a virgin (Mary), ascetic diet (John the Baptist), uncharacteristic singleness (Paul and Barnabas), and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, the surpassing grace and labor and suffering of Paul, the lack of genealogy of Melchizedek, etc., to Christ being sinless, which is mentioned at least thrice.
In the absence of any statement or clear manifest evidence to the contrary, then the norm is to be presumed.
Moreover, since God used sinners build His tabernacle and to bring forth His pure and holy word, and come into a defiled world and even touch lepers while here, He certainly can take upon flesh thru a sinner.
Everybody in Scripture, except for the Blessed Mother, Adam and Eve, had original sin.
That's the Catholic argument.