A "cool" Pope? Or a vague one?

The New York Times' article, "Pope Bluntly Faults Church's Focus on Gays and Abortion" and the Wall Street Journal article "Pope Warns Church Focusing Too Much on Divisive Issues," discuss Pope Francis' different approach to being the leader of the Catholic Church.

It is clear from the titles of the articles that there is a different tone to each: NYT appears to take a more harsh stance, while WSJ's wording appears more even--using 'warns' instead of 'bluntly faults,' 'divisive issues' instead of 'gays and abortion.' Not only does this allow WSJ wiggle room (the Pope gave a 12,000 word interview, he must have focused on more than 'gays and abortion'), but comes as less offensive. The NYT article makes the Pope come off as a man as harsh as his predecessors, instead of the warm, open-armed man that the WSJ makes him out to be.

Both articles use similar quotes, but different portions, which also change the tone of the piece. NYT recalls the Pope in a previous interview saying, "who am I to judge," concerning homosexuals. The WSJ uses more of the same quote, "Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill who seeks the Lord?" Not only is this more specific, but it makes the Pope, once again, appear more caring.

Not that the NYT attempts to make the Pope a hardened man, they give quotes that reflect his more accepting views:
              “Some of the things in it really surprised me,” Father Martin said. “He seems
                even more of   a free-thinker than I thought — creative, experimental,
                willing to live on the margins, push boundaries back a little bit.”

It's an interesting example of how wording can make the difference. The WSJ also brings up that maybe this Pope isn't being as accepting as followers are beginning to see him, perhaps he is just vague. By asking the Church not to focus on divisive issues, does that mean he is willing to open a debate, or does it mean that he refuses to talk about the subjects at large because his new-found popularity may change? 

I also think that WSJ should have touched on the points that NYT made: the Pope used to be seen as an authoritarian figure. While the Pope says he was in his 'crazy' young years (36 years old!) and that he has changed...has he really? Or is this just an attempt to make Catholicism more appealing to the masses?

While WSJ used language geared toward a 'neutral' tone (or is my bias coming into play and their tone was more in favor of the Pope??), the NYT devoted more space and time to this article, covering more ground.