No problem, to each his own. I’m about to defend the Douay Rheims, but do not take my defense as if I thought in any way that you should use the Douay Rheims or that you may not hold your opinion. I think you may hold to your opinion without any changes. But I disagree with your opinion for reasons which I am about to give.
From my understanding, they didn’t translate the that bible from the Greek. They went from Latin, taking it from the Vulgate.
They did take it from the Vulgate, while comparing it to the Greek. If you check the title page of the original, 1582 Douay Rheims, here is how they described their bible:
“translated faithfully into English, out of the authentical Latin, according to the best corrected copies of the same, diligently conferred with the Greek and other editions in divers languages…[with] necessary helps…especially for the discovery of the corruptions of divers late translations.” source
In an appendix of this 1582 Bible, the translators discuss passages where recent Protestant translators mistranslated the Greek text, showing how important it was to the Douay Rheims translators to maintain fidelity to the Greek:
“A table of certain places in the New Testament corruptly translated in favor of heresies of these days in the English Editions…Wherein we do not charge our adversaries for disagreeing from the authentical Latin text (whereof much is said in the Preface) but for corrupting the Greek itself, which they pretend to translate.”
The Douay Rheims is translated from the Latin, yes, but they had the Greek right next to it, and they made sure their translation matched both. In my opinion, this means that, in a certain sense, it was translated out of both the Latin and the Greek. Moreover, the protestants translated their versions with the Latin bible right next to them, and occasionally translated out of Latin instead of the Greek. This shows up, for example, in the KJV translation of Hebrews 9:1, which I’ll give more detail about in a moment.
Another point also has to be brought out here since it is connected to the last one: neither the Protestants nor the Catholics at this time had access to modern, scientific reconstructions of the original Greek text. Catholics and Protestants all used the Greek text prepared by a Catholic scholar named Erasmus. Today, his edition of the Greek text is known as the Textus Receptus, and, in that time, this edition of the Greek text was well-known to contain errors which could not (at that time) be corrected. One example involves Hebrews 9:1, which I mentioned earlier.
For Hebrews 9:1, Erasmus’s Greek New Testament contains the words, in Greek, “the first tabernacle had also ordinances…” The Vulgate, as well as modern reconstructed Greek texts, all say, “the first covenant had also ordinances…” Now, Protestant scholars and Catholic scholars all knew that on this point, the Vulgate was correct and the Textus Receptus (Erasmus’s Greek New Testament manuscript) was wrong. So, the Protestants and the Catholics all translated this word from the Latin instead of the Greek. This is only one example – there are plenty of others.
This is one reason why Catholic scholars and some Protestant scholars, including Theodore Beza, who was an influential Calvinist at that time, all said that the Vulgate was superior to the Greek text. Not because the translation was superior to the original, that would be silly, but because their Greek texts were not the original, but error-ridden manuscripts with many variations that had not been corrected yet, whereas the Vulgate was (relatively) error-free. So it was actually quite reasonable, at the time, to translate the Latin instead of the Greek, so long as you compared the one to the other before translating and did your best to make them match. Before modern scientific reconstructions using the techniques of textual criticism, the relatively error-free Vulgate was simply more faithful to the original texts than the relatively error-ridden Textus Receptus.
All that said…don’t take this as implying that I think you must change your negative opinion about the Douay Rheims Bible. I use modern translations myself, and one reason is because modern reconstructions of the Greek text (like Nestle-Aland) are better than the Vulgate. But for their era, I think the Douay Rheims translators made a good choice, translating out of the Vulgate but keeping a Greek text right next to them and diligently comparing them to make sure they matched as best they could. And I think this fact should be more well-known today, because it was a very wise policy in my opinion.