Well yes, it is true that the Vatican opposed some of Wycliffe's translation decisions, but that's not the whole story.

It's also true that the Vatican decreed twice, in the 15th and 16th centuries, that translating the Bible into vernacular languages was prohibited , with a pope in the 16th century defending the prohibition by explaining that there was "not much profit" in lay people being able to read the New Testament for themselves.

This position was not, however, as necessarily unreasonable is it would be today. In the 16th century, literacy was very rare, and people who were literate tended to be literate in Latin rather than vernacular languages.

People who were literate in vernacular languages were not usually common people, but wealthy aristocrats, many of whom the Church feared had agendas contrary to the interests of the Church.

The Church apparently felt threatened by the idea that people like this could take interpretation of the Bible into their own hands, and for a while Rome was very strict about opposing vernacular Bibles — easing up only when such Bibles had become common among Protestants, especially as more people became literate.

For a general overview on the Church and vernacular Bible translations:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_the_Bible#:~:text=It%20was%20a%20word%2Dfor,of%20Bibles%20in%20vernacular%20languages.