The extraordinary form of the Mass is contemporary and is celebrated more frequently than some of the Eastern rite liturgies. There are monasteries and parishes all over the world committed to the extraordinary form. The liturgy of 1950 is just as relevant as the liturgy of 1970. Perhaps more so because (IMO) nothing appears so dated today as anything – clothes, architecture, or music from the 1970’s.

“I can say that none of these young people see the Latin Mass as something they are seeking in order to deepen their faith or strengthen their connection with the church (sic)

I wonder how this observation was determined? Do the young people of your parish have extensive experience with the extraordinary form by which to compare it to the ordinary form? Perhaps your young people are familiar with the ordinary form in Latin with a sung gradual instead of the Responsorial Psalm (did you know that the sung gradual remains in the ordinary form)? It seems to me that in truth all that has happened is the young people have little to no experience with the EF and don’t know how it could build and sustain a strong faith and Catholic identity.
Looking at the stats on Catholic practice since the introduction of the ordinary form it seems pastoral & prudent to re-introduce the extraordinary form in places where it was sidelined. Let the two forms compete side by side and then we will know what the people prefer.

“Going backwards is rarely a good way to go forwards. And there is no doubt that the church needs to progress.”

Funny thing – you’ve just regulated the liturgies of the other Catholic ritual Churches in communion with Rome – Byzantine, Chaldean and Coptic to being “backwards” and lacking “progress” because they’ve not modified their liturgies in any significant way since the council though they too are post Vatican II Catholic Churches.

Don’t confuse “change” with “progress”. Change can be regressive. Nevertheless, to bring the Mass of Vatican II, the Mass celebrated by the Council Fathers, to the people in no way retards the Church – it permits healthy diversity and is pastoral.
The ordinary form of the liturgy is beset by translation problems and liturgical abuses that bring the people a great deal of pain. Don’t fear diversity. The Byzantine rite has two forms (Liturgy of St. John C. and St. Basil) – now we have two forms as well.

“The church of the Latin Mass was one that stood apart from the community, a church that was very much of the “us” and “them” variety, a church that sided all too often with those who had power and wealth.”

Your division of the Church into a “Latin Mass” Church and a (non Latin Mass) Church displays a hermeneutic of rupture that has no basis in our ecclesiology. (1) the post V2 liturgy is celebrated in Latin too, (2) we remain part of the Latin rite, (3) there was no vernacular Mass at Vatican II, (4) the Church has not changed her teaching about possessing the fullness of the truth, (5) St Francis of Assisi, the Missionaries of Charity, the Little Sisters of the Poor, the St. Vincent Society, and the Catholic Workers of D. Day fame were all founded when the liturgy was only in Latin. Therefore, the social apostolate of the Church does not seem to require the ordinary form of the Mass.

Additionally, don’t presume that Vatican II demands a rupture in liturgy. The other ritual Churches within Catholicism give evidence of that.

“Latin is an unnecessary distraction.”

A strange charge coming from a member of the Latin Church. Did it “distract” St. Francis? Did it “distract” the Fathers at V2? Quite the opposite of your view – Vatican 2 directed that Latin and Gregorian chant remain in the liturgy – do you realize this? To be honest to our brothers in the faith we cannot ignore the fact that the call of the council was to retain Latin not to drop it. The wisdom in the Council’s call to retain Latin is evidenced by the translation problems that consumes the English speaking Church today.