Obj. 2:  Further, an accident is not transmitted by way of origin, unless its subject be also transmitted, since accidents do not pass from one subject to another.  Now the rational soul which is the subject of sin, is not transmitted by way of origin, as was shown in the First Part (Q. 118, A. 2).  Therefore neither can any sin be transmitted by way of origin.

Obj. 3:  Further, whatever is transmitted by way of human origin, is caused by the semen.  But the semen cannot cause sin, because it lacks the rational part of the soul, which alone can be a cause of sin.  Therefore no sin can be contracted by way of origin.

Obj. 4:  Further, that which is more perfect in nature, is more powerful in action.  Now perfect flesh cannot infect the soul united to it, else the soul could not be cleansed of original sin, so long as it is united to the body.  Much less, therefore, can the semen infect the soul.

Obj. 5:  Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 5):  “No one finds fault with those who are ugly by nature, but only those who are so through want of exercise and through carelessness.”  Now those are said to be “naturally ugly,” who are so from their origin.  Therefore nothing which comes by way of origin is blameworthy or sinful.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom. 5:12):  “By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death.”  Nor can this be understood as denoting imitation or suggestion, since it is written (Wis. 2:24):  “By the envy of the devil, death came into this world.”  It follows therefore that through origin from the first man sin entered into the world.

I answer that, According to the Catholic Faith we are bound to hold that the first sin of the first man is transmitted to his descendants, by way of origin.  For this reason children are taken to be baptized soon after their birth, to show that they have to be washed from some uncleanness.  The contrary is part of the Pelagian heresy, as is clear from Augustine in many of his books [For instance, Retract. i, 9; De Pecc.  Merit. et Remiss. ix; Contra Julian. iii, 1; De Dono Persev. xi, xii.]

In endeavoring to explain how the sin of our first parent could be transmitted by way of origin to his descendants, various writers have gone about it in various ways.  For some, considering that the subject of sin is the rational soul, maintained that the rational soul is transmitted with the semen, so that thus an infected soul would seem to produce other infected souls.  Others, rejecting this as erroneous, endeavored to show how the guilt of the parent’s soul can be transmitted to the children, even though the soul be not transmitted, from the fact that defects of the body are transmitted from parent to child—­thus a leper may beget a leper, or a gouty man may be the father of a gouty son, on account of some seminal corruption, although this corruption is not leprosy or gout.  Now since the body is proportionate to the soul, and since the soul’s defects redound into the body, and vice versa, in like manner, say they, a culpable defect of the soul is passed on to the child, through the transmission of the semen, albeit the semen itself is not the subject of the guilt.