Why Latin?

Hoija tackles that issue, mentioning particularly that "[t]he neutrality of Latin is a very admirable characteristic of the language" — On the Issue of the Vernacular at Mass. He expands, with a Korean example:

With the Church using such a neutral tongue, She does not favor one ethnic group or groups over another, nor one region over another. Though it may not be as clear in the Anglophone world, there are still many parts of the world where the dialects of a language are either mutually intelligible or quite noticeably different. Here is where we run into the issue of dialects of vernaculars. The use of vernacular language at Mass puts prominence on one “standardized” version (sometimes not even the standard literary language as in the case with English translations) of that vernacular over other dialects. This has profound societal implications and is especially true for those not speaking the standard dialect into which the Mass is now often translated. How is translating the Mass into the vernacular of any benefit to the Jejudo diver or the Gyeongsangdo fisherman that is forced to pray in a “vernacular” not his?

Hoija goes as far to argue, counterintuitively but perhaps correctly, that "since the Church has allowed Her faithful to now recite the Mass in their vernacular languages, She has given up on protecting diversity of the cultures indebted to Her."