No, I am not going to follow the advice of one Comment and desist from using the term 'Adulterers' for 'Remarried Divorcees'.
I've only recently started using it; I'm not naturally a terribly in-your-face sort of person.
One reason for using it would be because "My Father was a Yorshireman and he believed in calling a Spade a Spade". But my Father was most certainly not a Yorkshireman. (Reminds me of a joke by Mr A F Wells of Univ, lecturing in 1960 on Horace, who observed that the difference between the Odes and the Epodes was that in the latter Horace felt free to call a spado a spado.)
My reason would be this. People ask why Divorce, or Marital Breakdown, should be the only Sin which is apparently unforgiveable in the Catholic Church. They don't realise that nobody is claiming that. Nothing at all in the past is too bad for absolution; quite the opposite. But the point is that Remarried Divorcees who have no intention of ceasing a sexual relationship are in fact unrepentant adulterers, because their continuing relationship was described by the Lord as Adultery. Because in His sight they are not married. Or so he said. And, frankly, I don't see how he could have expressed himself more clearly than he did.
The adulterous male is ontologically still married to his "first" wife. Their Marriage still subsists. That is why, every time he and his new Missus embark upon eune kai eros they are ... committing Adultery. But terms like 'ontological' are not part of the common currency of popular discourse.
This is what people don't understand about Catholic teaching; and why it is important to call an Adulterer an Adulterer. This has to be repeated, has to be explained again, because people find it hard to understand how X and Y are still "married in the sight of God", as Jesus of Nazaereth explained, even when they have each got a divorce and 'married' someone else. Even if their later unions have the appearance of marriages, and of a good marriages, and even if they are naturally kind and pleasant people.