The problem is it hasn't really worked, the bored faces as the scriptures are read, the lack of knowledge even of the Gospels or of key Old Testament stories suggest not just a failure but that we are possibly worse of than we were before the Council. At least before because of the richness of our devotions to the person of Jesus we might have been able to say to Protestants: you know scripture but we know Christ.
Today we have the scriptures in the vernacular but I suspect that is part of the problem. For many lay people and clergy too there is too much detail. So much detail in fact that there is failure to communicate that what is being proclaimed is indeed the Word of God. At least in the Extraordinary Form, at High Mass, the ceremonies, the chants, the movement away from the altar, the lights and the smoke of incense at the Gospel, at least signified that some kind of theophany was taken place, that the "Word of God" was being proclaimed. Now, though we hear and can understand the words, it is very easy to forget what is actually happening. It is not apparent that God is speaking, the Word himself is being made present: sensible, hearable amongst us.
I might be wrong but I think our big problem is we have lost a sense that scripture is actually "The Word of the Lord", the utterance of God himself, in the case of the Gospel the direct speech of the Incarnate Word made present in the Church. Perhaps this failure is one important reason for our lack of "Gospel hunger". The details, the actual teaching, obscure the fact that God communicates, that he is Emmanuel, God amongst us.
The basic catechesis of the Extraordinary Form was: God speaks, whereas the Ordinary Form seems more about the details of the teaching - a difference between the wood and the trees, the presence of the speaker and his speech.
In both Catholic and non-Catholic catechesis the obscuring of this simple strain that the Word of God is indeed God's Word is really very problematic because it transforms the very nature of Christianity from being about a relationship with the Trinity to a set of moral precepts. The intention of the older Form was not to obscure the actual text of scripture, though the lack of amplification, the use of a sacral language might well have done this but its real thrust was to reveal God. The newer Form opens up scripture but the tendency has been to see the words as being more important than the idea of the Word.
I find it strange that in the older Form of the Mass I am content to be silent, in the newer Form I feel a compulsion to preach, I normally do it only once, some priests seem to what to do it all through Mass.
Sometimes I wonder whether preaching actually obscures God's Word rather reveals it. Catholics understand scripture as being of itself as "alive and active" but I suspect it can only be that if we have sense of that "awe" which the liturgy so often speaks of, that God actually speaks to us.
As a footnote there is an excellent piece here by Fr Christopher Smith in which he says of the Homily:
Often Catholics think of preaching as the homily which explains the readings at Mass. Priests attempt to explain what the readings mean. Often they will ignore one or more of the readings appointed for any given day because he can find no obvious connection between them, or he forces a connection between them all. Each Sunday is seen as a discrete unit all to itself, and no attempt is made to set the appointed readings in the context of the other readings in previous or subsequent Sundays. He also attempts to do all of this in five or at most ten minutes. He might tell a joke or share a story, but because it is in Mass, he will generally respect the formal nature of the homily as a part of the Mass. And he will almost never preach outside of Mass.
I content that this situation is an unintended byproduct of Vatican II. Before Vatican II, the homily was not considered a part of the Mass. In fact, it was not considered essential, even on Sundays, although warmly encouraged. In some places, the priest took off, not only the maniple but also the chasuble, as a cue that this sermon was not a part of the Mass. But what has happened is that, the emphasis on the homily as an integral part of the Mass has led some priests to limit their preaching to Mass. It also has led many priests to preach when they probably should have not, because of illness, lack of preparation, lack of knowledge, or just plain lack of ability to speak clearly and properly.He also suggests that there are other areas where teaching can be done and where the Word can be heard, including the Office and Lectio Divina. I am not arguing for less scripture but a richer appreciation of what it actually is and asking how we create the hunger that Fr Smith describes.