In this chapter we take up three ways intended meanings may turn out to be problematic.

First, the intended meanings could be absurd, unjust, pointless, or quite anachronistic (and thereby absurd, unjust, or pointless). Second, the intended meaning may be utterly opaque, either in general or, more likely, in the particular circumstances of applica­tion. Third, and a point much emphasized in criticism of intentionalist approaches such as ours, the rule-maker may be a multi-member insti­tution such as a legislature, a multi-member court, or an administrative board; and it may be the case that there is no single intended meaning endorsed by enough members to enact that meaning as law. We take up in turn these three problems with equating the meaning of a canon­ical legal text with the rule-maker's intended meaning for that text.

3.1