The Church as a whole still must condemn homosexual acts, adultery, and other such sins, but at the same time, they must show that there is a better way, not condemn people. If we don't strongly and clearly condemn sin, we too are guilty.
The problem is that the stereotype of "sanctimonious, self-righteous prigs" largely emerged from the homosexual community itself and various tools like Phelps. I've tried to talk to many gay people I know, and, more often than not, at the first hint that God doesn't approve of their actions, the screaming about "hater" and "fundie" starts, as well as suggestions that would get me banned if I repeated them.
It's a stereotype that they cling to with dogged perseverance. Even to the point where a friend of mine wished a former friend of ours (before he started screaming at us about how we were haters) a happy birthday. The reply was: "I don't want you to be nice to me."
There is a proper time, manner, and means by which sin must be condemned. The proper time and means is in catechesis, not when someone is struggling. The proper manner is proportional - not letting homosexuality or abortion slide as anything other but sin, but at the same time, not losing sight of the fact that these sins are simply less easily hidden than others just as serious.
the stereotype of "sanctimonious, self-righteous prigs" largely emerged from the homosexual community itself and various tools like Phelps.
Oh, that's not true. An unfortunate tendency within the theologically conservatism has always been a touch of legalistic Pharisaicalism. "I thank thee that I am not like other sinners."