Again, you are ignoring historical reality.
Two important facts to remember:
(1) 95% of the population was illiterate and could read neither English nor Latin. Books of any kind, let alone books as large and complex as the Bible, were prohibitively expensive and difficult to come by. Why?
(2) Printing had only been around for a few decades. The cost of a complete Bible in any language prior to 1500 was somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-20 workingmen's annual wages.
Even in the 1550s, a century after the invention of printing had significantly cut the cost of books, Bibles were so expensive that the English Crown could not afford to provide every government preacher with a Bible - so a Bible was chained to the altar of a select number of churches for the use of itinerant, government-licensed preachers.
It wasn't until the 1600s that printing had sufficiently achieved the economies of scale necessary to make books available to wealthiest 20% of society.
The vernacular translations of Tyndale and Coverdale did not "put the Bible in the hands of the common man" as is commonly claimed. It put the Bible in the hands of the less-well-educated portion of the educated 5% - and it was done for a very specific reason.
After the King had tortured, persecuted and driven abroad two-thirds of the English clergy, his new church had to make do with the dregs and washouts of the educated class - the kind who barely remembered their schooling and required vernacular Bibles to be able to perform their clerical duties.
In point of fact, the Catholic Church never opposed the translation of the Bible into the vernacular.
In Europe, from the fourth century until the sixteenth century, to be literate meant to read Latin. The concept of vernacular Bibles as one's primary Scriptural text was strange - vernacular versions were considered to be analogous to Cliff Notes for people who hadn't fully mastered their Latin, or as aids to preaching to enable pastors to more swiftly translate passages verbally for the illiterate common throng.
You are taking the modern-day milieu of cheaply available books and 99% literacy for granted - we are not living the norm of human history: we are incredibly lucky to live in an age where one can both buy an accurately translated Bible for $4 and read it.
Nope, I know that illiteracy was widespread in the Middle Ages. However, education had been increasing dramatically since Renaissance times and it was inevitable that the masses were going to become literate.
Wycliffe, Tyndale and others yearned to have the Bible available in the vernacular. Here is a famous quote from Tyndale while addressing a priest: "If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth a plough shall know more of the Scriptures than thou doest." He must have seen the inevitablility of the masses learning to read as he knew of Gutenberg's invention. And what better book to teach men and women to read from than the Bible itself? In fact, the Bible was used as a textbook, more than any other book. Tyndale was hounded by the Church for his translation work and later burned.
In addition, with the translation of the scriptures, preachers could read directly from a vernacular source which would also reach the masses (Wycliffe's Lollards were tireless in this type of preaching.) Even if one was illiterate, hearing the Word of God in one's own language must have been tremendously inspiring.
By the way, I recently learned that John Wycliffe was most likely the first person to translate the entire Bible anywhere in Europe in 1,000 years. Pretty amazing accomplishment. The Pope ordered his bones exhumed and burned for this and other "offences".