Good research.
I think we're coming up on something the BIG rubric of which is, "the devil is in the details," and the smaller rubric of which is, what buzzackly do we mean by the Catholic Church?
And in a larger and vaguer sense, there HAS been the result which our side feared. I'm thinking especially of groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses. They CLAIM to be solidly Biblically based. And they marshal arguments about, say, the use of the definite article in Koine Greek that are exhausting in their number and challenging in their obscurity.
To sum up so far,n (1) despite your evidence, there were still devout and sort of 'official' Catholics producing translations, verse paraphrases, and the rest. The Vatican and some bishops may not have been happy with it, but the junior offices seem to have been operating on the principle that it is easier to get forgiveness than permission.
(2) If we assume the impossible, that the Church was right that the Albigensians really were wicked, and that while they did have a legitimate beef against the luxury and irreligion of the prelates, still (and we would say something similar of Luther) they went too far.
(3) And (new point) I am reading (skimming) a book whose thesis is that Shakespeare was a Catholic sympathizer, if not actually Catholic. And the author mentions in a footnote that one had to have evens secular plays "registered." So the cultural mindset was one in favor of control.
I don;t think it will turn out to be as simple as either side makes it out to be.
I will grant that the intentions of the Catholic Church was to stop heresy. That it tried to do so by suppressing vernacular translations is both a symptom of the times (medieval folks believed in control by the state), and a symptom of what the Catholic Church feared would happen if folks read scripture for themselves. And the latter is, I think it obvious, NOT a high note of Catholic history.