"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.
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.