Yes, I think it is probably time to bring up this issue. I often think that discussions here or at places like the Catholic Answers Forums regarding the NAB(RE) usually descend into debates about the commentary, more so than the translation itself. Of course that is a generalization, but one that I think has some merit to it. Recent discussion on this blog over the release of Genesis 1 in the NABRE has brought this issue to the forefront again. From my perspective, I have become so accustom to the tone and content of the NAB commentary that nothing really "bothers" me anymore. I am not one who thinks that the majority of the NAB(RE) commentary are problematic, since I tend to appreciate the more historical-critical notes. That being said, there certainly are some stinkers, most notably Matthew 16:21-23, which in the end tend to overshadow the majority of notes which are simply informative, neutral in content, or at times tradition affirming in tone. Do I wish some of the notes weren't written in a tone that assumes certain scholarly theories are fact when they are not? Yes! Would I like a few more citations to the Fathers or the CCC? Yes! Do I think the notes are heretical? No!
So, then, the issue is what should be the tone and content of the NAB(RE) commentary? Should those who have worked on the commentary assume that the typical Catholic reader would have some basic knowledge of the various theories in current Biblical scholarship?