In studying comparitive religion, I learned that Bible reading was much more emphasized by Protestant denominations. This is why the sermon was a much more important component of Sunday worship, vs. the music and ritual of Catholics. Believers were expected and enjoined to read the Bible, and ministers used often lengthy and detailed sermons to tell them how to interpret it and what it meant for their lives. This is not unrelated to translation of the Bible into the vernacular, and development of the printing press, enabling everyone to own a copy. The Catholic tradition preserved worship in Latin until well into the last century, a tradition I personally find beautiful and meaningful, but which doesn't help believers engage with Biblical texts directly. Stories instead were presented in artwork (stained glass, statuary), and Biblical knowledge was long the realm of clergy.
I know much of this has changed in the modern age, now that people are literate, Bibles are readily available, and Catholics and Protestants live side by side. I grew up Catholic, and we did learn about the Bible in Sunday School - the atrocious CCD classes American kids were sent to. We were never given Bibles, like our protestant friends and schoolmates, though, it wasn't a priority. My church - a large one in an active archdiocese - never held a Bible study for adults. Christian education focused on being faithful to God and being a good person - valuable lessons illustrated as often using popular culture as Bible stories. Sermons were rudimentary, perfunctory, even, except for when a seminary professor visited to say Mass. The only topic emphasized less than the Bible was church history. I learned that in (secular) college. As a longtime church musician, I have seen much different treatment of the Bible in the many protestant churches where I have played. Even the smallest will emphasize Bible study for all ages, often giving Bibles to young people at Confirmation. My own knowledge of the Bible comes largely from taking some of these classes. I do not even count myself a Christian any longer, but I am happy to be familiar with a book that has had such a significant influence on humanity.
As related in the Bible, I find Jesus' meaning to be quite plain. It is also not an easy message to live up to. No surprise people prefer to obfuscate it or twist it into something unintended.
Its not simply a modern day thing that the role of the bible or vernacular scriptures has changed in the RCC, although I've met a lot of protestants who are honestly of the opinion that the reformation is still in its early days somehow and nothing has changed in the RCC itself or among its congregations. That is disappointing to me because theologically the Vatican even issued consensus papers as long ago at the 1990s or just slightly later which the Lutherans accepted on the validity of key points of Luther's doctrines. I know at the time and since I've found that difficult to accept but anyway.
In my home my parents but especially my dad are religious and my dad encouraged me when I was interested in buying a bible to do so, they've gifted me copies since, the ones I own have commentary in the form of footnotes from RCC theologians and I appreciate that. Although I do agree with you that a lot of the time religious education in schools or at masses (there is no sunday school here for RCC) was a form of moral education and most of the time references pop-culture, ie MLK, Ghandi, that type of thing.
I'd often wondered why the RCC does not seek to capitalize on its history, at its best (or even at its worst by way of a learning exercise), and its saints and its own traditions. Anyway, in terms of reading the bible, there was a counter-reformation, also a counter-enlightenment, most of those developments were about integrating what it was possible to and making definitive breaks with what they could not. I think that's fair enough. Its the classic "reflective conservative" model of rationalizing "tradition as memory" which is the only version of conservatism/traditionalism I think is legitimate.
Although, that said, if you ever read the "discourse on free will" between Luther and Erasmus, the reforming tendencies were already there. Luther behaved like the worst sort of "troll" or "rebel", rejected all the reforming forces as inadequate but as soon as he secured his independent status and leadership to himself he turned on his supporters and allied with the barons, against the church but also the peasants because of the peasant war in Germany.
I would be unsure if I could call myself a Christian, although its for very different reasons, probably, largely because in the Kirkegaard sense its hard to do so and properly honour what's mean (or at least I understand by that term).
The old and the new testaments are consistent one with the other, I think, I'm not sure if it is an "easy message to live up to" but I have some pretty radical understandings of that message, for instance, I consider the liberation theology to be valid, also to be moderate in contrast to my own understandings of what I think Jesus' teaching was. If I'm altogether honest in who I think has been able to practice, partially, what I think Jesus wanted, I'd have to say some zen buddhists maybe have been close, as I think it is important how you act, your mode of existence (being, not having, not doing) rather than you thinking or allegiance to creedos/testamonials.
I also think that the whole history of religion has been repeated by the irreligious on the macroscale and by pretty much any movement you care to mention on the microscale too, first as tragedy, second as farce, and probably will do, forever and ever, amen.
