There are, and were, two concerns. One is that the translation is incomplete or inaccurate. This is plaguing the Protestant communities to this day. Sadly, our own NAB is just as bad as King James, although not nearly as horrid as some "dynamic" translations.
The other is that no one reads the Bible on his own. Everyone brings in his notions of right and wrong, preferences, social instincts, etc. The Reformers, for example, brought in their democratic instincts and anticlerical disposition, very remote from the Apostolic age. We see the same silliness today when people think that clerical vestments are funny.
Douay Rheims actually preceded King James. The Church never prevented the laity from studying the scripture, but it did not like deception. We still don't.
but it did not like deception. We still don't.
++ ++
Except, of course, when it's magestierically generated or sanctioned deception.
I have some sympathy for what you're saying. This is certainly true among established believers, including the first Reformers. But of course the same can be said for almost all people raised in the RCC. I was thinking of those who really did initially read (at least parts) of the Bible on their own. I was like that. At the time I knew absolutely nothing of the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.
Of course I am an insignificant anecdote, however, there is a much larger comparison for today. That is the Gideons. A Gideon comes and speaks at our church a couple of times per year. We donate to them. Their ministry defines people reading the Bible from nothing, and there is obviously no theological follow up in a great majority of cases, if ever. Does the RCC support the Gideons, or even approve of what they do?