I'm not sure where the [not] came from in julia's answer, but if it is there it gives the sentence a completely different meaning.
When you say,
Something is adjective one, if adjective two, ...
the second adjective is essentially there to molify the first. In other words you could rephrase such a construction into
Something is adjective one, even though it is also adjective 2, ...
An example here will probably help
Black is a fashionable, if sometimes overused, color.
This means we admit that black is overused, but it is still fashionable despite that.
In the case you quote the pope's remarks are pointed (i.e. penetrating, biting) even though they are fatherly which here means given in good spirit, as a father would to his child.
On the other hand if you add in not as in
His remarks are pointed, if not aggressive,
You get pretty much the opposite meaning. Here the second adjective goes further than the first. Meaning roughly his remarks were at least pointed possible you could go as far as think they were aggressive. The second adjective is stronger than the first with a similar meaning.
Edit: Actually having though about it more I realize ",if not adjective2," can also be used to convey that adjective1 doesn't go quite as far as adjective2. I believe that the correct meaning must be decided depending on context and possibly word tone.