Those are interesting examples, but they apply to the Catholic faith, which has no issue with evolution. It's the Protestants who we're having the argument with.
I wasn't thinking primarily of evolution, but with an earlier post (95, from you) where the issue came up over the definition of faith:
the belief in something for which there is [ no material evidence / sufficient material evidence]...
that is, I was raising the distinction between degrees of faith. The Shroud of Turin can be seen, weighed, X-rayed, what have you; there is more evidence there than just "God told me". The Mons angels are not directly physically measurable, but there were apparently multiple independent witnesses.
The "line" is at a different place, might be one way to put it.
I wanted to make the distinction for the purposes PH's and Coyoteman's definition: otherwise, "faith" might become synonymous with "Pickwickian".
(One might also think of the word "trust", by analogy to the trust a person has in an unfaithful spouse. At first it might be easy to ignore the evidence of cheating...but after you start finding lipstick on shirts or other people's underwear in the bed, it is not so much trust as "willful blindness." )
Cheers!