Really? Are you Catholic? I honestly thought you were coming at this from a low-church Protestant tack, my profound apologies for being condescending.
Here's the thing. There's never been a time in the Church without a sacred language. There's also never been a time without the vernacular. And very often (as you correctly pointed out), a vernacular soon becomes a sacred language, as Latin or Cranmer's English.
So I think the most sensible policy is to wholeheartedly encourage both. Keep the Latin (as Vatican II stated), but at the same time make provision for the vernacular where and when it serves the Church. You'll not find me siding with the opponents of Sts. Cyril and Methodius for translating the liturgy into Slavonic. However, I do think that aggressively ripping out the Latin as we've done the last 40 years has been a catastrophic mistake and led to a huge breakdown in Catholic identity.
Yes, indeed I'm Catholic. I entered the Church as an adult. I found no insult in anything you said.
I see no harm in conducting Latin Mass for those who prefer it. Why not? I would even be open to making a point of doing it once a year in place of English. I would enjoy the historical element. I just reject the necessity of it.
Our Deacons perform a basic "how/why its done" Mass once a year that I think is very valuable for people who are prone to fall into recitation of the liturgy, etc. without thought.
As for keeping Latin as a common base language in the Church, from which all vernacular translations are then made, I see great value in it. The dead aspect of Latin makes it very useful as such a medium and certainly helps to prevent constant arguments.