You’re using all your false presumptions to argue for your false presumptions.
1. The bible was not prohibited. Wycliffe’s translation was prohibited because it was false.
2. Yes, English grammar was taught first... as a spoken language. You can read any medieval English text and quickly disabuse yourself of the notion that anyone taught anyone English grammar or spelling, because there was no standardization of either to be taught!
3. Inasmuch as people read Latin, of course the church bibles were in Latin. But there were plenty of glosses.
4. The Catholic church did as much as it could to get the bible into as many hands as they could. If a bible cost six figures to print today, do you think you could walk off with a church’s bible without so much as asking permission? A bible took a full year’s labor of a highly trained monk to create. Yet the Catholic church ran churches, libraries, seminaries, universities, etc., to help facilitate sharing of resources. It published breviaries consisting of the gospels, OT liturgical readings, psalms, and epistles. It constructed church windows and statues as mnemonic devices, and trained countless catechists how to interpret and spread that knowledge of iconography.
“The Catholic church did as much as it could to get the bible into as many hands as they could.”
Apparently not very well, as the other link pointed out, since literacy did not skyrocket until as a result of the Reformation.
Do you think this would be a good law today or a bad law that the government gets to decide the quality of a bible translation?