I don’t see anything in AL8 that explicitly allows divorced and “remarried” people to receive communion. The closest thing I see is an oblique reference with a footnote:
…the consequences or effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same.336
336This is also the case with regard to sacramental discipline, since discernment can recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists. In such cases, what is found in another document applies: cf. Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013), 44 and 47: AAS 105 (2013), 1038-1040.
Talk about something being buried.
In a nutshell, it says that some people might not have sufficient reflection and full consent of the will, thereby mitigating their culpability for the sin. I don’t buy the first — if someone is being pastorally counseled, they are (I would hope) being told of the grave sinfulness of living in an invalid marriage while conducting a conjugal life (i.e., not a Josephite marriage). So they know, they have been told, and refusal to accept the teaching would be saying “the Church is wrong and I am right”. If we let people “get by with this”, we are then in the position of “the tail wagging the dog” or “the children tell their parents what to do”. As for full consent of the will, the only justification would be someone living in an invalid marriage but not wanting to be in the marriage — forced to enter into it and/or to stay in it — and not wanting to conduct a conjugal life but being forced to by their spouse. Should we not oppose people being forced to live like that? I certainly do.
Where the woman is the aggrieved spouse, should not any feminist worth her salt (or his salt — not all feminists are women) be opposed to a woman having to live like that? A feminist wouldn’t have to be Catholic or even Christian to find it repellent for a woman to be forced to violate her conscience. What if it were, for instance, a Muslim woman being forced to violate halal, or a Jewish woman being forced to violate kosher?