She said that it was considered okay for a baptized person (of any faith, as long as you had been baptized by 'someone') to do so, RC or not.
While some Catholics (including some heterodox priests) consider it OK, that is not the official position. Because the Church considers Eastern (Orthodox) churchs to have valid sacraments, their members can partake of Catholic sacraments if acceptable to both sects. Protestants, however, are not considered to have valid sacraments, so their members cannot participate in Catholic communion. The official Church policy is in Articles 1399-1400 of the Catechism:
The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."
Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders. It is for this reason that Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible for the Catholic Church. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."
since wine is expensive and may lead to abuse by alcoholics, only the priest follows that part of the ceremony in some Churches.
Laity receiving consecrated unleavened bread alone was the practice for a long time, but you jump to conclusions about the reason for that. It was mostly a matter of practicality: how much wine would be needed, how many priests and deacons were available to distribute communion, and how long it would take. Depending on the diocese and parish, lay persons would receive consecrated wine on special occassions, such as the bride and groom at their nuptial mass. Most churches today are not standing-room-only, but that was the case until a few decades ago. Since 1969, the Church also apponts lay "Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist" to assist the priest and deacon with communion when necessary (with the present-day shortage of clergy, that means most of the time).
Under Catholic doctrine, it makes no difference: the complete Eucharist is present in the Host as well as the chalice.
The other thing was women who were divorced (I don't know about men but would guess the same). They were not allowed to receive communion. Because divorce was not acceptable.
It applies equally to man and woman alike, but the statement above is too general and requires clarification. Those who have been in a valid marriage, then divorce, and then marry another are not eligible to receive communion. Marriage to another is the main issue. From Catechism Article 1650 [emphasis added]:
Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists.
And from Articles 2382-2384 [emphasis added]:
Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."
The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law. If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.
... Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery
