This distinction has always been cited, for example, to make Christians understand that abortion laws do not have to be respected, no matter how legal they may be, regardless of the degree of sovereignty of the country issuing them. According to the Church, Christians should not only not obey abortion laws, but even more so, they should explicitly ignore and oppose them, precisely because these laws may be very legal for the Church, but they are not only because they threaten human life. When it comes to abortion, the Church has a clear obligation to uphold and defend justice, not legality. Let`s go much further and pay attention to the legislator, whose role is to grasp the limits of what is legal (and what is understood as right) and what is not. Laws always lag behind society, it is society that leads the reform, and therefore it would be a real injustice that, with the excitement it provokes, would arise the need to change a law or create a new one. It is not justice that inspires the creation of laws, but real injustice that motivates the creation, revision or repeal of a law. Therefore, it is clear that there will be laws that will not seek justice in their actual application, but unjust situations, and it will be this injustice that will inspire change. There is also the problem of necessary agricultural reforms in our troubled continent. The present property of landowners – which, because everything is even the authors of laws – is legal, but manifestly unjust; As a result of this ownership, the right to private ownership of land has taken precedence over the fundamental right to human life, and the right of some to private ownership of land has been transformed into the right to deprive the vast majority of property.

How difficult it is for the legal and the just to coincide, how complicated it is for true justice to be protected by the law, how powerless to control how many times the right is unjust and how often the just is never protected by the law. As Sacred Scripture says, the mere presence of the righteous hinders and destabilizes the established disorder that the laws call “order.” The just or the just is always a stone in the shoe of the legal. The jubilee that we are so joyfully preparing for the famous year 2000 was born in Israel precisely to eliminate the extreme inequalities that, in the previous fifty years, would have produced the difference between the just and the legal. We have to assume that, as two sides of the same coin, there are always at least two ways of understanding each case, and I say at least, because then we find in practice, surprisingly, that the judicial solution can also deviate from the two opposing positions in the end. Aristotle said that virtue is in the middle ground, but is this temporary solution fair? We would say no. It usually does not satisfy either of the parties found, but would be doubly unfair as it failed to meet the expectations of both. The president of the Latin American Council of Bishops, CELAM, called the U.S. anti-immigration policy a “racist and anti-Hispanic reaction” (against Hispanics). But he also acknowledged that the country is “sovereign” to enact laws that prevent the illegal entry of people, and that these laws “must be respected.” – The foreign debt of Latin America, which is very legal according to the laws of our countries and the dominant neoliberalism, but which is very unfair (as well as unaffordable). Why should we have an obligation to pay for something (a moral obligation, of course) that is clearly unfair, no matter how legal it may be? But despite all this, laws are necessary, we need an order, imperfect, but an order, because it gives us security, gives us hope and faith in the realization of the desired justice. And it is in this task that we engage, and even engage, when, in the exercise of our legitimate right to vote, we choose those who will be the architects of our laws, those who try to define what is right and what is not, and who end up creating ever new unjust situations. Therefore, it is important to know who we will vote for, who will be our champions, first legislate and then fight in court, because they are the ones who will fight through their actions for the personal and unique justice of the client before the spheres of reality.

Perhaps the most hurtful case of insulting justice by legality is the lack of defence and dispossession in which the indigenous peoples of Latin America have found themselves for five hundred years. -The difference between the legal minimum wage and what the fair minimum wage would be. My conscience tells me – to finish where I started – that I have an obligation to comply with government regulations that are legal, but only those that are legal at the same time. My conscience tells me that I don`t have to abide by unjust laws, like racist laws, no matter how legal. Racist laws also contradict the U.S. Constitution, so sovereign that it should make its laws. How is it? These are racist and anti-immigrant laws and therefore unjust, and should they still be respected? And the essential difference between the just and the legal? This is a clear example that the law is not always fair. It is obvious that no matter what rhetoric the government uses to justify the unjustified, its practice is not consistent between what it says and what it does, as evidenced by trigger-happy legal impunity and corruption. It is necessary to establish the legal framework of what is just and what is unjust; True from false.

Law is a right for which peoples have fought throughout their historical lives and the life of humanity; It allows us to live together and the respect we owe each other as citizens. The right to democracy is inscribed in daily life and constitutes a conquest of freedom that makes it possible to achieve equality for all. (by Adolfo Pérez Esquivel) Today, the country`s Minister of Security and the Minister of Security of Buenos Aires Province are talking about the legality that land confiscation is illegal and threatening punitive sanctions for the detention of people looking for housing. Once at the cinema, you listen to this sentence. “If you want to win a case, don`t look for an optimist, look for a lawyer.” I try to remember that when I talk to my clients about what they will find in litigation, after all, it`s a struggle. whose weapon is speech and evidence. But in the end, a struggle that always leaves scars. In the exercise of the law, it is very easy in practice to find justice other than that which the citizen seeks protection, an interpretation other than his own conception of what should be just in his situation, and this because, in addition to the difficulty of proving reason in all cases, We must add the aggravating factor. that the third party who judges also has his or her own subjective sense of administering justice. Justice and justice do not always go hand in hand. Moreover, they rarely go together. How many times have we heard the phrase: “There is no justice in this country”.

Justice belongs to the club of great words such as liberty, equality and fraternity, to name just three examples. This does not prevent us from taking care of them. Communism also had the ambition to save humanity, but its implementation led to a degeneration of the original, ever purer. Man dictates laws, and therefore such laws can never attain perfection. For example, is the verdict against Judge Garzón fair? For many, this is not the case. But it turns out it`s legal. And the law is cold when enforced. In fact, society is full of unjust laws. Well, we don`t all understand the same thing when we talk about justice. For others, a prosecution may be fair if the criminal is paid in the same room.

Therefore, there is often little difference between the righteous man and the right man.