Dialogue and the Closed Mind

I was deeply saddened and disturbed by parts of Michael P.'s blog letter to me.  Michael P. wrote: 

Michael [S.], you and I live in very different theological universes.  I'm guessing, for example, that you interpret the infancy narratives literally.  I do not.  Anymore than I interpret the "apostolic succession" narrative literally.  I doubt it would be productive for you and me to try to bridge the chasm between those universes. 

I wasn't engaged--nor do I have any interest in engaging in--a dialogue with those bishops who were sinfully complicit in the immoral, ugly, outrageous, disgusting abuse of children.

I see no more need to argue *for* women priests and bishops--or *for* married priests and bishops--than I see a need to argue *against* the proposition that the earth is flat.  (Or *against* the position of young-earth creationists.)  What a pointless, tiresome endeavor that would be. 

Michael P., if I am reading these sentences correctly, I draw two conclusions.  First, you are not interested in dialogue - whether with me, other members of the blog, the hierarchy, or others - on many of the issues that have presented themselves in our day.  With me, it wouldn't "be productive."  With the bishops, their sin seems to preclude dialogue.  And, with respect to some of the issues (human sexuality and who ought to be eligible for the priesthood), you suggest that dialogue would be "a pointless, tiresome endeavor."  Second, you seem to be incredibly close-minded on these issues.  With respect to gay marriage, you label those who oppose it as "prejudiced" without (so far) giving reasons for your conclusion.  And, if I read you correctly, those who think that women are theologically ineligible for the priesthood and those who for prudential reasons favor a celibate priesthood (note, Michael, that I am not taking a position on either of these issues because those questions are above my pay grade) are no different than people who believe the world is flat.  By your analogy to the flat earth, I take it that you are not open to the possibility that the magisterium, as it presently understands these issues, could possibly be right.

Is the world we inhabit so post-modern and post-rational that two people (the two Michael's in this case)who claim the same Church as their home cannot engage in rational productive dialogue about the important issues of the day? 

If I have misinterpreted anything you have said Michael, please correct me.  If not, I have an honest and sincere question:  What issues are worth the attempt to engage in productive dialogue with people who inhabit very different theological universes from your own?