And what about any other documents? Are they "living," too?
Pro-abortion U.S. Supreme Court "Injustice" Ruth Bader Ginsburg, ex-general counsel for the ACLU, aka the Anti-Christian Lawsuits Unit, addessed the Constitutional Court of South Africa on February 7, 2006, and delivered some really sinister opinions. (Click on this post's title to see her speech.) Ms. Ginsburg:
...ripped "the view of the U.S. Constitution as a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification."
...said U.S. courts need to "read the [U.S.] Constitution as belonging to a global 21st century, not as fixed forever by 18th-century understandings."
...argued that U.S. courts should impose "dynamic versus static, frozen-in-time constitutional interpretation" on the American people.
Ms. Ginsburg bragged that the U.S. Supreme Court made new interpretations and cited foreign law in "Lawrence v. Texas" (2003), the 5-4 ruling that overturned state laws against sodomy. She quoted it: "...times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."
Have you ever noticed that calling the Constitution "a living document" is a lot like invoking "the spirit of Vatican II?" Finding "rights" to abort babies and to commit sodomy in the U.S. Constitution, even though they are NOT THERE, is much like "finding" all kinds of things in the documents of Vatican II that are NOT THERE.
In other words, ex-general counsels of the ACLU and current dissenters from the Faith are alike: They invent invisible permissions for the sins they want to commit and for the twisted versions of governing they want to impose on the rest of us.
Parce nobis, Domine! (Spare us, O Lord!)