The following is my take on this issue:
We do an examination of conscience before approaching the sacrament of reconciliation. This examination of conscience, ideally, is something we have learned how to do through catechesis, the teaching of the magisterium (primarily transmitted to us via homilies), and prayer. Otherwise, we’re ‘shooting from the hip’ and not really taking our obligation to the sacramental life seriously.
The homily exists to teach us proper “real life” application of the readings we have just heard and the teaching of the Church. When we read Scripture, we must prepare ourselves first by invoking the wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit, and we must come to understand what we read through the lens of Church Teaching and Tradition. So, while it really isn’t our “place” to interpret Scripture, it is not beyond our faculties to read for understanding - as long as we don’t attempt to see something in the reading that doesn’t coincide or align with the other two legs of the stool: Teaching & Tradition. We have to realize that the three must always go together. (If you want to get technical, that means even a priest or deacon shouldn’t be interpreting Scripture in isolation, but only in ‘solidarity’, if you will, with the Church.)
I think the fear of individuals interpreting Scripture willy-nilly has some basis - otherwise, would we have all the denominations that we do? However, to say we have no business trying to understand what we read (which is the way I take a statement like “[Catholics] are not allowed to interpret the meanings of the readings”) is just as silly. We have an obligation to understand our faith, and we do that by acquainting ourselves with it through prayer, study (of Text, Teaching, and Tradition), and community.
I hope my ramblings prove helpful to you. Peace.