The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise. The notion of private property is implicit in the Commandment, "though shall not steal." However, since all that exists is the Lord's, no man can truly say that he owns anything absolutely. The right to hold private property is relinquished or nullified in life or death cases. For example, in a time of famine, those people who are starving would have a primary right to an individual farmer's produce.
"For example, in a time of famine, those people who are starving would have a primary right to an individual farmer's produce."
I didn't find that in the Catholic Encyclopedia article you linked. As a matter of fact, these passages...
"And Pius X, in his Motu Proprio of 18 Dec., 1903, laid down the following two principles for the guidance of all Catholics:
• (1) "Unlike the beast, man has on earth not only the right of use, but a permanent right of ownership; and this is true not only of those things which are consumed in their use, but also of those which are not consumed by their use";
• (2) "Private property is under all circumstances, be it the fruit of labour or acquired by conveyance or donation, a natural right, and everybody may make such reasonable disposal of it as he thinks fit."
...
Though private property is a necessity, still the use of earthly goods should in a manner be general, as Aristotle intimated (Polit., 1. 2, c. 5) and as Christian philosophy has proved in detail (St. Thomas, "Summa" II-II, Q. lxvi, a. 2; Leo XIII's encycl., "De conditione opificum"). This end is obtained when the rich not only observe the laws of justice, by not taking unjust advantage, but also, out of charity and liberality, share their abundance with the needy. Earthly goods are meant to be, in a certain manner, useful to all men, since they have been created for all men, and consequently the rich are strictly obliged to share their superfluities with the poor."
...would seem to contradict the notion that the starving have any "right" to other people's property.
An obligation on Peter to be charitable in no way endows Paul with the right to take Peter's property. In fact, the notion that anyone has a "right" to another's property nullifies the entire concept of charity, which lies in freely giving someone what he has no right to take.
In posting my worldview article in here, I was fairly certain it would meet with some some constructive criticism due to this being a much more intellectually informed forum than in some of the other groups I post in. It's mostly for those 'other' groups..... groups controlled by pagans, atheists, radical homosexuals, New Agers, etc.,
that my writing style, which simplifies complex ideas as much as possible, is aimed. The abject ignorance and hatred I encounter in those groups is astonishing and disheartening. But who knows?
Perhaps I might reach through to someone.