My source was The Catholic Sourcebook by Rev. Peter Klein, which has a whole chapter on the various bibles that were around at the time of the Reformation, something that I had in all honesty not seen anywhere else. The section in question that deals with Tyndale's work reads:
Tyndale's Bible was the first printed English New Testament, to which were later added the Pentateuch (1530) and various Old Testament parts. Its translator was William Tyndale (1490-1536), "The Father of the English Bible," an ex-Augustinian monk, and an Oxford student of the Scriptures in Greek and Hebrew. It was not embraced by the hierarchy in English because its strident anti-clerical notes and its theological slant (it was quickly noticed, for example, that the new translation used the terms "congregation," "overseer," and "elder," instead of "church," "bishop," and "priest"). These were finer points, however, compared to what brought the wrath of Henry VIII: the abritrary omission of 1 Peter 13-14.
Since the Sourcebook has proved right in the past on issues of translation and such, I thought that it could be trusted in this regard as well. I am, however, now curious as to what Klein's source for those claims were if, as you say, they aren't true.
Not that it adds anything to the question of Tyndale's suggested anti-clerical bias, but I used to eat dinner under a picture of Tyndale every night in my college hall at Oxford.
A bit more interesting tidbit is the large stained glass of Tyndale at the back of the college chapel. He's flanked by several evangelists and missionaries and featured with a printing press.
Isn't it just like us moderns to take someone (who may have been) opposed to the church and priests and set up a giant memorial to him in the tradition of the same thing which he was rejecting/reforming.