It's also just flat untrue.  It seems like I find Thomists standing up and saying interesting things in the Q and A at every lecture I attend at every conference in both continental and analytic contexts.  If anyone is taking seriously the claims made by other traditions it's Thomists.  They have an infuriating habit of referring every possible difficulty to some precious distinction, yes, but they are listening.  Heideggerians or Hegelians or Humeans on the other hand? Not so much.

Well, I've seen a lot of different things and I can kind of get the idea. While I have seen a lot of Thomist and Catholic interaction with phenomenology and Heidegger sometimes one wonders why one spent time on Heidegger if Thomas was going to win by default.

In the other hand, Caputo is an interesting case until he got ahold of Derrida, though I suspect one could hardly count him a Thomist of the strict observance (OTSO?).

Stein is a great case. Heidegger himself is a great case, and I think everyone who cares should see S. J. McGrath's book on him.

The worst "why bother" offender I've seen is Caitlin Smith Gilson's "The Metaphysical Presuppositions of Being-in-the-World: A Confrontation Between St. Thomas Aquinas and Martin Heidegger". It's fine, but you know ole Thomas is coming out unscathed because Heidegger didn't quite get the pre-modern understanding (ie *Thomas' understanding) of man right.

I've seen a bad tendency to Aquinasize Aristotle and Plato, but I forgive them more than I do moderns who do this since his reading is very deep.