That is simply parroted propaganda, like a Communist justifying its censorship of what challenges it. You can only presume that challenging Rome based upon what one sees in Scripture was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm.. Which it was at the time, physically, but Jewish leadership had a like attitude, (Jn. 7:45-49) yet the NT church began with common people correctly ascertaining what was of God, and it was them who heard Jesus gladly. (Mk. 11:32; 12:37) Good thing Rome was not there to save them from these itinerant preachers.
Examples are given of situations of the circumstances where serious spiritual harm was a concern, such as when translations are faulty.
Somewhat, but not necessarily the main reason. Others ,
The followers of John Wycliffe undertook the first complete English translations of the Christian scriptures in the 14th century. These translations were banned in 1409 due to their association with the Lollards.[29] The Wycliffe Bible pre-dated the printing press but was circulated very widely in manuscript form, often inscribed with a date earlier than 1409 to avoid the legal ban. As the text translated in the various versions of the Wycliffe Bible was the Latin Vulgate, and as it contained no heterodox readings, there was in practice no way by which the ecclesiastical authorities could distinguish the banned version; consequently many Catholic commentators of the 15th and 16th centuries (such as Thomas More) took these manuscript English Bibles to represent an anonymous earlier orthodox translation.
I have yet to see the errors in these "faulty" translations that would result in serious spiritual harm versus overall help to the reader, and besides mere copyist/printer errors which could be corrected, it was likely the notes which challenged the errors of Rome which she sought to "protect" the ignorant indoctrinated souls from.
Furthermore, if Rome was not opposed to the masses being Biblically literate then she would have done what men like Wyclif did, and make it freely available as able, and thus enabled what men such as Chrysostom exhorted, and like the Puritans, make a administrative requirements to teach them to read.
In addition the Vulgate itself had some errors, resulting in the Sistine Vulgate fiasco .
Do you think it good for people to read faulty translations of Scripture, and to mistake the whims of the translator for God’s revelation?
That is more presumption, that banned Bibles were all critically faulty but that which Rome issues is not, which is absurd. If you want a faulty translation to ban you can start with Rome's own NAB and NABRE (and many of its helps and notes ), the bane of many RC traditionalists for many reasons
The particular Catholics who banned and burned the Wycliffe Bible were those who took part in the English Parliament of 1401 under the leadership of Henry IV, who was a King of England, not the Pope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_heretico_comburendo
I fully share your appreciation that the value of imprimaturs varies hugely, and think that the granting of one to the NAB notes is a particularly good example of this—I have used these very notes as an example of this in class on several occasions. The system of looking to a guide does make sense, one does need to be aware of the guide.
The Sixtine vulgate fiasco makes interesting reading, and in many ways resembles the rushed job on the post-Vatican II liturgy, albeit perhaps with happier results.