When the topic is evolution, there is usually an anti-God slant.
These days, we don't need the concept of a creator because we better understand the workings of the universe.
This of course doesn't have anything to do with Faith, that's an entirely personal thing that some need/want to get through life, to each their own. Fortunately in this era we mainly have switched away from executing those that don't share the same faith. Oh, wait...
And you're somewhat misleadingly misrepresenting that Wikipedia article. It actually says that the no-conflict position is an unofficial stance of the Vatican.
It also (rather importantly neglected by your comment) says that their position is that humans are indeed special and need the existence of god. That's rather a conceited view of our species, but then this is coming from the same organization that spent much of the 13th century burning whole french villages...
as to the second point: I would assume the Pope actually knows the opinion of the church and wrote so here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM or http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/pont...
As to point 3: see my response to 1 and yes, religions for the most part believe Humans are special. Being sentient tends to do that.
I think you have it backwards, religion very much depends (with glorious irony) upon evolution, and our human condition of attributing agency where there is none.
Meanwhile, with our without any of thinking any mythological super being, evolution carries right along, at the cellular level all the way up to who we are.
I am not saying there is, or isn't a god (I honestly don't care, what does it matter?) - but I am saying that it's time we stopped burying our heads in the sand and ignoring science, while we hack off the limbs of anyone that doesn't share our particular god theory.
Science is anti-faith, religion is anti-evidence, how anyone thinks them compatible is beyond me. Faith is not a virtue in science, it's just bad thinking.
"The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."
And he's quite simply wrong, they do overlap as science has something to say about all of those things. Religion has no claim on the realm of morality and meaning, nor does it provide any actual answers on the subject, nor does it serve as a guiding light on the subject.
Gould is trying to play nice because he thinks religion is valuable to many people and he doesn't want to offend. I do not believe his position honest, merely political.
As for what the church thinks, they're going to rationalize no matter what, their opinions simply support my original statement.
But really, there is a deeper issue that, without a testament of the nature of your personal interpretation of your religion, it is not actually possible to usefully decide if evolution and your religious beliefs are compatible.