Then you do not understand social justice as defined by the Church. Although it is laudable and obligatory that each individual work toward it and be so motivated, it is the primary obligation of the State, not private individuals and actually involves the entire order of the commonwealth, not simply help for the poor, i.e. it is not defined as "charity", (as the modern secular definition defines it.). It is due justice, the proper order of the commonwealth and the upholding of the common good. It isn't the end product of the desire you describe because it has to do with issues like living wages, the inalienable right to health care, the proper understanding of private property, etc.
At no time did I make the statement that social justice was charity. In fact I defined as ensuring that others get their due based on their inherent dignity as a person, vocation in life, and the common good.
The motivation to pursue social justice can be the desire to help others attain those things that are their due. There is nothing wrong with that.
Big problem when those like Glenn Beck say things like...
If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop and tell them, “Excuse me are you down with this whole social justice thing?” I don’t care what the church is. If it’s my church, I’m alerting the church authorities: “Excuse me, what’s this social justice thing?” And if they say, “Yeah, we’re all in that social justice thing,” I’m in the wrong place.
I agree that this does not reflect Church teaching on social justice.
If that were all that they said I would have less of a problem with it. It isn't. They both deny the State's very reason for existence according to Catholic teaching. As to your specifics, there is absolutely nothing in Catholic teaching that would, in the abstract, oppose a single payer health care system if that is what the legitimate political authority of the State determines is the most competent level and method of insuring that the inalienable right to health care is met. That is not to say that I think that best. I don't, but I highlight it because it points out that I really don't think you do understand said teaching.
I do understand the teaching. However, in reality, the state has shown no ability to get involved with things such as health care without violating liberty, creating a massive and inefficient bureaucracy, taxing citizens at too high of a level, or spending the country into the ground in the process. Thus, while in the abstract it does not, in real world practice the principle of subsidiarity would prevent such a top down approach. Blessed John Paul II spoke about this when he said:
Malfunctions and defects in the social assistance state [or welfare state] are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the state. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: A community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. (Centesimus Annus 48)
Unfortunately we have already seen way too many examples of interfering in the life of a community of a lower order. We have also seen too many examples of this:
“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” Centesimus Annus, 48, John Paul II, 1991
I am not and will not defend any erroneous idea of what social justice might mean.
Good. Me either.