You wrote:
“Reading the Bible in your own language isn’t a bad thing for freedom. That’s why Rome (at the time) “preferred” it in Latin.”
Rome had nothing to say about it. There were always translations in the vernacular - as the translators of the KJV mention in their preface. Apparently you don’t know as much as you think you know.
“Once the common man could read it in whatever language he was capable, freedom from those who would tell you what it meant and that you couldn’t possibly be allowed to read it for yourself was a good thing - and people got used to it.”
Literate people were already used to reading and hearing the scriptures in their own vernacular language. If anything held them up from doing so it was the following: the enormous cost of making Bibles, the difficulty of picking WHICH vernacular to use and the low literacy rates. Rome had nothing to do with it. Rome never prohibited the translation of scriptures. Rome preferred the use of Latin because that was the language that united all Catholics everywhere and still does. That preference had nothing to do with what individual diocese or hierarchies or even individual Catholics chose to do.
If you check Thomas More and others, you'll find a big part of their objection was to commoners getting hold of scripture...
"They will say haply, the scripture requireth a pure mind and a quiet mind; and therefore the lay-man, because he is altogether cumbered with worldly business, cannot understand them. If that be the cause, then it is a plain case that our prelates understand not the scriptures themselves: for no layman is so tangled with worldly business as they are. The great things of the world are ministered by them; neither do the lay-people any great thing, but at their assignment. ‘If the scripture were in the mother tongue,’ they will say, ‘then would the lay-people understand it, every man after his own ways.’ Wherefore serveth the curate, but to teach him the right way? Wherefore were the holy days made, but that the people should come and learn? Are ye not abominable schoolmasters, in that ye take so great wages, if ye will not teach? If ye would teach, how could ye do it so well, and with so great profit, as when the lay-people have the scripture before them in their mother tongue? For then should they see, by the order of the text, whether thou jugglest or not: and then would they believe it, because it is the scripture of God, though thy living be never so abominable. Where now, because your living and your preaching are so contrary, and because they grope out in every sermon your open and manifest lies, and smell your unsatiable covetousness, they believe you not when you preach truth. But, alas! the curates themselves (for the most part) wot no more what the new or old Testament meaneth, than do the Turks: neither know they of any more than that they read at mass, matins, and evensong, which yet they understand not: neither care they, but even to mumble up so much every day, as the pie and popinjay speak, they wot not what, to fill their bellies withal. If they will not let the lay-man have the word of God in his mother tongue, yet let the priests have it; which for a great part of them do understand no Latin at all, but sing, and say, and patter all day, with the lips only, that which the heart understandeth not." - THE OBEDIENCE OF A CHRISTIAN MAN
“Rome had nothing to say about it.”
Lol, ya think? They reacted to it, being caught not meeting the needs of the Christian masses.