Beginning in the 13th century, as a response to the heretical Christian groups translating the Bible into the vernacular, the Catholic Church convened local councils to establish the fact that the laity did not have the same rights as the clergy to possess the Scriptures:
Council of Toulouse (1229 AD)
14 We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.
Notice firstly, that the possession of the Old and New Testament were completely forbidden to the laity, except for the book of Psalms, and whatever verses were in the Breviary. But, this was only to be in the Church's official translation, the Latin Vulgate. They were strictly forbidden "any translation" into the vernacular of any book of the Bible.
The prohibition on vernacular Bible possession was reiterated at another local council:
Council of Tarragona (1234 AD)
No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the vernacular language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion.
When faced with the above, Roman Catholics will often respond that what was forbidden here were merely heretical vernacular translations, with errors, or commentary from heretics. However, this is not true. The Council of Toulouse specifically distinguished between the Scripture and vernacular translations, and both were forbidden, except the Vulgate, in an extremely limited way.
Also, the above total prohibitions on all vernacular Bibles demonstrate that the Catholic Church was not active in publishing and disseminating vernacular translations in the countries in which it was operating - France (Toulouse) and Spain (Tarragona) in this case - both of which had an official Catholic presence for many hundreds of years at this point. If there existed Catholic vernacular translations intended for Catholics to read in these places, then a blanket ban on vernacular translations would be contrary to the Church's own work.
The ecumenical council of Trent (1545-1563 AD) was not as strict as the local councils above - already representing conflicting conciliar judgment on this issue - permitting that, if a pastor or confessor deemed it beneficial for a person, that person, with written permission, may read vernacular translations of the Bible by Catholics:
Council of Trent - Rules Concerning Prohibited Books (1546 AD)
4 Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing.
Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.
The above is still a condemnation of indiscriminate availability of the Bible, to be read by anyone - such would "create more harm than good" (the Word of God everywhere - imagine!). However, concessions have been granted that are generous compared to Toulouse and Tarragona.
It's important to remember the historical context of Trent, however. Trent was first and foremost a response to the Protestant Reformation, in which vernacular reading of the Bible was strongly advocated (Luther finished his famous German New Testament translation in 1522 AD), and the Catholic Church was criticized for their caging of the Bible from the ordinary person. Therefore, it makes sense to see the above as a concession, couched in the context of the Catholic Counter-Reformation.
The critical message of the Church, though, remained unchanged. The Bible was not a free book, intended for the average person. This is made very clear in the Encyclical Unigenitus, by Pope Clement XI (1649-1721 AD), in which he is condemning the teachings of Cornelius Jansen (1585-1638 AD):
Pope Clement XI - Unigenitus (1713 AD)
79 It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture. (Condemned)
80 The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all. (Condemned)
81 The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it. (Condemned)
82 The Lord’s Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading. (Condemned)
84 To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ. (Condemned)
85 To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication. (Condemned)
The above very well captures the general tone of the historical Catholic hierarchy towards Bible reading - it's not for the laity. That's why all of Jansen's proposals - which seem uncontroversial, and Biblical - are rebuffed.
Following this, in the period 1800-1850 AD, there was a rash of Papal Encyclicals against the work of Bible societies, which at the time were feverishly trying to do what the Infallible Teacher of the Scriptures had left off doing for over a thousand years - get the Bible into as many languages as possible, and distribute it freely to as many as would want it. They keep the same general tone of tyrannicism and despotism that have been seen so far above. For excerpts from these Encyclicals, see Appendix I.
Therefore, the testimony of history is that the Catholic Church has not been eager to disseminate the Biblical text, even though even though the Scripture itself says:
These declarations reflect the attitude of a totalitarian ecclesiastical institution, which does not want anyone to challenge any of its conclusions on any doctrines. Therefore, access to the Word of God must be restricted.
The Second Vatican Council (1962-65 AD) was indisputably the most significant ecumenical council in Catholic Church history.
It utterly reversed the Church's historical position on a whole host of issues, and in the constitution Dei Verbum, the issue of Bible reading received attention:
Vatican 2 (1965 AD) - Dei Verbum
22 Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament which is called the septuagint; and she has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate. But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.
25 It devolves on sacred bishops "who have the apostolic teaching" to give the faithful entrusted to them suitable instruction in the right use of the divine books, especially the New Testament and above all the Gospels. This can be done through translations of the sacred texts, which are to be provided with the necessary and really adequate explanations so that the children of the Church may safely and profitably become conversant with the Sacred Scriptures and be penetrated with their spirit.
Furthermore, editions of the Sacred Scriptures, provided with suitable footnotes, should be prepared also for the use of non-Christians and adapted to their situation. Both pastors of souls and Christians generally should see to the wise distribution of these in one way or another.
The tone of the above is utterly distinct from historical Roman Catholic teaching on lay Bible reading. It presents a direct contradiction with traditional Catholic view on the Bible.
Recall that in the Council of Trent, it was said that "it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good". Pope Clement XI directly condemned the proposition that "The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all". Yet, here we read "Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful". These are irreconcilable contradictions. It is impossible, with an honest heart, to say that the Church has maintained the exact same doctrine in regard to lay Bible usage.
The above constitution from Vatican 2 also encouraged working with "separated brethren" to produce translations, so that "all Christians will be able to use them". Further, translations with commentary are recommended to be "prepared also for the use of non-Christians, and adapted to their situation". So, the council not only favored all Catholic laity reading the Bible in the vernacular, but also those who it denounced as Christian heretics repeatedly at the Council of Trent, as well as unbelievers. This is an about-face, and it's clear that the bishops of the Second Vatican Council simply believed differently to those of the Council of Trent, on this essential issue of the faith.
Throughout its history, the Roman Catholic Church was extremely restrictive regarding access to the Bible, often limiting or prohibiting the laity's reading or possession of it. Many non-Catholics were killed or persecuted for producing or possessing unauthorized translations, or authorized versions without the proper permission. Translation into the vernacular, and generous distribution of that translation to the masses, was not pursued.
However, in the Second Vatican Council, the Church completely altered course, and declared that "Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful", and instructed clergy to begin to actively translate and provide the Scripture to Catholics, Protestants, and non-Christians alike.
This is tremendously inconsistent, and demonstrates that the Catholic Church is not infallible, or reliable, because what would get a person killed or persecuted in the 15th century, is in the 20th and 21st century commended, and appointed as a focus for the entire Church.
Pope Pius VII - Magno et Acerbo (1816 AD)
For you should have kept before your eyes the warnings which Our predecessors have constantly given, namely, that, if the sacred books are permitted everywhere without discrimination in the vulgar tongue, more damage will arise from this than advantage.
Furthermore, the Roman Church, accepting only the Vulgate edition according to the well-known prescription of the Council of Trent, disapproves the versions in other tongues and permits only those which are edited with the explanations carefully chosen from writings of the Fathers and Catholic Doctors, so that so great a treasure may not be exposed to the corruptions of novelties, and so that the Church, spread throughout the world, may be of one tongue and of the same speech [Gen. 11:1].
Pope Leo XII - Ubi Primum (1824 AD)
In virtue of Our apostolic office, We too exhort you to try every means of keeping your flock from those deadly pastures. Do everything possible to see that the faithful observe strictly the rules of our Congregation of the Index. Convince them that to allow holy Bibles in the ordinary language, wholesale and without distinction, would on account of human rashness cause more harm than good.
Pope Pius VIII - Traditi Humilitati (1829 AD)
We must also be wary of those who publish the Bible with new interpretations contrary to the Church's laws. They skillfully distort the meaning by their own interpretation. They print the Bibles in the vernacular and, absorbing an incredible expense, offer them free even to the uneducated. Furthermore, the Bibles are rarely without perverse little inserts to insure that the reader imbibes their lethal poison instead of the saving water of salvation.
Long ago the Apostolic See warned about this serious hazard to the faith and drew up a list of the authors of these pernicious notions. The rules of this Index were published by the Council of Trent; the ordinance required that translations of the Bible into the vernacular not be permitted without the approval of the Apostolic See and further required that they be published with commentaries from the Fathers.
Pope Gregory XVI - Inter Praecipuas (1844 AD)
Among the special schemes with which non-Catholics plot against the adherents of Catholic truth to turn their minds away from the faith, the biblical societies are prominent. They were first established in England and have spread far and wide so that We now see them as an army on the march, conspiring to publish in great numbers copies of the books of divine Scripture. These are translated into all kinds of vernacular languages for dissemination without discrimination among both Christians and infidels.
Then the biblical societies invite everyone to read them unguided. Therefore it is just as Jerome complained in his day: they make the art of understanding the Scriptures without a teacher "common to babbling old women and crazy old men and verbose sophists," and to anyone who can read, no matter what his status. Indeed, what is even more absurd and almost unheard of, they do not exclude the common people of the infidels from sharing this kind of a knowledge.
It is of little concern to these societies if men reading their vernacular Bibles fall into error. They are concerned primarily that the reader becomes accustomed to judging for himself the meaning of the books of Scripture, to scorning divine tradition preserved by the Catholic Church in the teaching of the Fathers, and to repudiating the very authority of the Church.
At the Synod of Jerusalem (1672 AD), which was Eastern Orthodoxy's response to the Reformation, we see much the same position as the pre-Vatican 2 Catholic Church:
Synod of Jerusalem (1672 AD)
Ought the Divine Scriptures to be read in the vulgar tongue by all Christians?
No. For that all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable (2 Timothy 3:16) we know, and is of such necessity, that without the same it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless, they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and in fine read. But to such as are not so exercised, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, as knowing by experience the mischief arising therefrom, forbiddeth the reading of the same. So that it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear indeed the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation (Romans 10:10); but to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for the aforesaid reasons and others of the like sort. For it is the same things thus to prohibit persons not exercised thereto reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats.