"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.
Again, man is essentially a social being. Consequently, all rights granted him are subject to the necessary restrictions which are demanded by the common welfare and more accurately determined by law. This right of disposal which the civil power exercises over property has been called dominium altum, but the term is misleading and should be avoided. Ownership gives to a person the right to dispose of a thing for his private interests as he sees fit. The Government has no right to dispose of the property of its subjects for its private interests, but only as far as the common weal requires...
In the example I gave, the distribution of the farmer's produce to starving people would promote the common good, since the right to life of the starving people supercedes the farmer's right to private property.
snip....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
Agreed. And to extrapolate a bit more: 'rights' are man-created 'privileges' and/or endowments. God did not grant 'rights'. What He did was, in effect, place 'responsibilities' upon us, as in "it is your personal responsibility not to trespass" or "it is your personal responsibility to be charitable".
And if each of us were faithfully committed towards acting upon our personal responsibilities to God and to each other, then in the case of the starving, there'd be no need for them to have to 'trespass' upon the farmer's property because the farmer, seeing that they were starving, would freely give {share} his provender with them.