I accept the point you make, but, just maybe, the problem was a dodgy Bishop not the language. If every Bishop who should be fired was, there wouldn't be too many left.
"just maybe, the problem was a dodgy Bishop not the language."
Sure, a dodgy bishop is a problem, but the opportunity to "translate" gives a dodgy clergyman a lot of cover to rewrite. It's not an either/or situation.
Get rid of dodgy clergymen, sure, but also take away that opportunity to rewrite.
I was talking to a Protestant the other day about the "But only say the word, and I shall be healed" problem.
http://catholicinsight.com/online/church/liturgy/new_mass.shtml
Mistranslation
At this point, congregations will be made particularly aware of the extent of change as they recite the words, “Lord, I am not worthy that thou should come under my roof but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed.”
The present version, which is a gross mistranslation, empties the response of its scriptural echoes, reading: “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.” The new text refers us to Luke 7:6-7, from which the words “come under my roof ” (sub tectum meum) derive. This is the Gospel account of Our Lord’s curing of the centurion’s dying slave. The centurion says: “I am not worthy to have you come under my roof ” (Catholic RSV edition).
(He's calling this "new" text, but it looks like the old text to me. I think it's only "new" in that it's a correct translation of a passage that was mistranslated--on purpose, in my view.)
Even as a Protestant, my acquaintance immediately saw that there was an important difference between the two versions, and yet, how many generations have been catechised and confirmed knowing only the deficient version?
Keeping things in Latin is a safeguard.