Communication must be maintained: you are correct. It seems to me that we are at a crossroads these days. Protestants came along and introduced the widespread notion that individual interpretation of Scripture is what the Apostles intended. Now, when a knowledgeable Catholic tries to have a discussion with them, they take issue with the most basic things, and no real communication can take place. They will usually criticize a priest who does his best to explain the Church's teaching in the specific case, which ends up sounding like a lecture, and the Prots are miserable unless they interfere and question too many things. There is a real rift in communication as a result.
So, along comes "dialogue" ("dialog" seems to have a more technical connotation) which is supposed to make everyone feel good. But if we accurately define what it is that has been going on under the banner of "dialogue," we can immediately see that it is nothing Catholic. Why do I say this?
Let's start with a good definition:
dialogue: a mutual verbal exchange (intercourse) between a Catholic and a non-Catholic in which they both endeavor to "discover" the truth, presuming from the start that neither one has it.
Do you see the problem with this kind of discussion?
But if, among the different ways of preaching the word of God that one sometimes seems to be preferable, which directed to non-Catholics, not in churches, but in some suitable place, in such wise that controversy is not sought, but friendly conference, such a method is certainly without fault. But let those who undertake such ministry be set apart by the authority of the bishops and let them be men whose science and virtue has been previously ascertained. For we think that there are many in your country who are separated from Catholic truth more by ignorance than by ill-will, who might perchance more easily be drawn to the one fold of Christ if this truth be set forth to them in a friendly and familiar way.