Jimmy Akin – Page 469

Telegraph Sends Faulty Message

The British "newspaper" The Telegraph has run a story headlined "Vatican vows to expel stem cell scientists from Church" and illustrated yet again why the secular press is too incompetent to keep its job when it comes to reporting religion stories.

According to the story:

Scientists who carry out embryonic stem cell research
and politicians who pass laws permitting the practice will be
excommunicated, the Vatican said yesterday.

"Destroying
human embryos is equivalent to an abortion. It is the same thing," said
Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council for the
Family.

"Excommunication will be applied to the
women, doctors and researchers who eliminate embryos [and to the]
politicians that approve the law," he said in an interview with
Famiglia Christiana, an official Vatican magazine.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!

The Telegraph needs to hold its horses on this one.

First, the fact that the head of a pontifical council said something in a magazine interview–even in a magazine published by the Vatican–does not ammount ot a statement of Vatican policy, so it is completely misrepresents the situation to take the cardinals interview remarks and pitch them as "Vatican vows" to do anything. The Vatican doesn’t make policy statements in magazine interviews.

Second, we’re talking about the head of the Pontifical Council on the Family, here. While he’s a great guy, it is not within his brief to make binding statements regarding the extent to which canonical matters like excommunication apply to particular situations. He’s certainly entitled to express his opinions on the matters (and ED PETERS THINKS HE’S RIGHT REGARDING EMBRYO DESTROYERS) but the good cardinal is not empowered to move beyond the realm of offering an opinion and into making binding interpretations of canon law. So one more reason why this ain’t a "Vatican vow."

Third, we’re not talking about all stem cell scientists–just those who destroy embryos. As JAMIE BEU POINTS OUT, only stem cell research involving embryos is in question, not adult stem cell research.

Fourth, even confining outselves to embryonic stem cell research, it ain’t all scientists who do this research that the cardinal was addressing–just those who destroy embryos. If a scientist is doing experiments on a cell line derived from embryos who were killed in the past, he’s not performing an abortion and thus he’s not whacked by the sentence of excommunication. Regardless of whether he’s engaging in a moral activity in doing such experiments, he’s not aborting embryos and thus does not incur excommunication for procuring or assisting in the procurement of an abortion.

Fifth, excommunication does not "expel [one] from [the] Church"! It just doesn’t! Not under current canon law. The canonical effects of excommunication are enumerated in CANON 1331 and being expelled from the Church ain’t one of ’em.

So any way you slice it, The Telegraph staff responsible for this story have done a flatly incompetent job–at that before we even get past the headline!

It’s not even clear from the way the story is written how far its incompetence goes.

For example, note this statement:

"Excommunication will be applied to the women, doctors and researchers who eliminate embryos [and to the] politicians that approve the law," he said in an interview with Famiglia Christiana, an official Vatican magazine.

Since I don’t have a copy of Famiglia Christiana (or a translation of it), I have to rely on The Telegraph that the material from the cardinal is being quoted accurately and in context, but there is a question in my mind about that because of the inserted "[and to the]" which bridges an elipsis in the cardinal’s remarks.

There is a question in my mind about whether this insertion and elipsis distorts what the cardinal said because there would be notable canonical problems with the assertion that politicians would be excommunicated.

Penal laws are subject to narrow interpretation (Canon 18), and the Church has not historically interpreted the abortion excommunication politicians who vote in favor of laws that allow abortion as being excommunicated. Those directly involved in the abortion are, but not those who established the legal framework allowing abortion to take place.

Further, John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae 73 that in certain situations Catholic politicians can vote for laws that allow abortion if there is no practical way to get the abortion-allowing provisions out of the laws.

If Cardinal Trujillo did say that the abortion excommunication applies to politicians (and I don’t know what is meant by "approve"–whether it is morally approve or approve in the sense of voting, either one of which would have canonical hurdles for such excommunications to take effect) then that is his opinion, but it is once again not an authentic (i.e., authoritative) interpretation of canon law.

Unfortunately, I can’t even be sure what the cardinal said or meant from the incompetent way that The Telegraph’s staff has handled this story.

Forgotten Sins & General Confession

A reader writes:

Through the work of the Holy Spirit a couple of years
ago, I was able to really turn my spiritual life
around and fully embrace my Catholicism. I’ll spare
you all the gory details, but Catholic Answers Live
played a big part.

I made some important confessions back then to really
bring me back into full communion with the Church, and
I continue to go every month or so. But I occasionally
will remember some stuff I did in my past life, either
a long time ago, or even just before my "reversion".
Sometimes really bad stuff, like Darth Vader stuff.

Unless you are a mass murderer or a Satanist, I very much doubt that you’ve got real Darth Vader-like stuff. You may be being scrupulous.

I tend to be scrupulous at times, although it comes
and goes.

Ahh. See?

I know I’m not supposed to reconfess things
(which I don’t)

It is possible to reconfess sins that have already been confessed and forgiven, but according to standard moral and pastoral theology this is something that a scrupulous person should not do because it fosters further scrupulosity.

and I’m not supposed to worry about
past sins (which I do). The sacrament takes care of
that.

True.

However, I have heard on EWTN and elsewhere that
it’s a good idea to mention unconfessed (forgotten)
serious sins the next time I go, even though the
sacrament took care of them.

It’s actually a bit stronger than that. If you remember a mortal sin that your forgot to confess then you have an obligation to confess it, even though it has already been forgiven.

In the case of scrupulous individuals, though, standard moral and pastoral theology holds that they should only confess such sins if the following conditions obtain: (1) they know for a fact it was a mortal sin and (2) they know for a fact that they have not already confessed it. If they aren’t sure about either of these two conditions then a person with a scrupulous conscience should not confess the sin because it will foster further scrupulosity if they get in the habit of confessing sins that they aren’t sure were mortal or aren’t sure if they haven’t already been confessed.

Would it be a good idea
for me to make a general confession, mentioning the
things I can think of, as a way to move on?

I continue to receive communion almost every day. My
head tells me to keep receiving, but my heart wants to
rid myself of the old baggage. I do realize the danger
of always remembering more and more past sins, as well
as the danger of not trusting the sacrament. I’ve
really enjoyed the posts you’ve made in the past
regarding scrupulosity. I’ve also read Fr. Santa’s
book. I’m not a "hard case", but like I said, it comes
and goes.

Whether you should make a general confession is difficult to say and is ultimately a decision that you will have to make based on your own knowledge of yourself and how successful it would be in helping you get past the present issue. It’s not an unreasonable idea, though, as long as you don’t find yourself wanting to do it again and again.

If you do make a general confession, then do it in such a way that will maximize your chance of getting past the scrupulosity: Sit down with a really thorough examination of conscience and make a list of everything mortally sinful that you think you may have done. Write it by hand; don’t use a computer. Then take this list with you into the confessional and read it or, if it is too painful, give it to the priest and say "I confess this." Then get the list back and DESTROY it (e.g., burn it and then flush the ashes).

You can, of course, omit from the list things that you’re sure that you have confessed.

And if you do decide on making a general confession, be sure to set up a special appointment time with the priest. Don’t show up to do it right before Mass or when there are other people waiting in line.

Hope this helps!

“On The First Day Of The Week”

A reader writes:

I’ve run across a quote in some Sabbatarian discussions: Acts 20:7 And I want to know something about it in case it comes up again.

"On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them because he was going to leave on the next day, and he kept on speaking until midnight."

I’ve heard this quoted to mean that these Christians met _only_ Sunday. The English doesn’t support that. It could perfectly well describe a situation where they met only on Sunday, but it could also describe a situation where they met every day (as the Christians did earlier in Acts) but this was the one where Paul spoke until late.

Does the Greek have something that precludes "This is the meeting where Paul spoke late" instead of "We had our only meeting on Sunday, and Paul spoke late at it."?

There’s nothing in the Greek (as opposed to the English) that would insist that Christians didn’t have meeting times other than Sunday (the first day of the week). Christians could and probably did have meetings on other days of the week.

That’s not to say that this verse as no value for establishing Sunday as the distinctive Christian day of worship, though.

I think that the situation is more complex than a "Did they meet every day or just on Sunday?" dichotomy, though. It is possible for the early Christians to have met on multiple days of the week–including every day–while still retaining Sunday as the distinctive day of worship.

That’s how we do it today. Most parishes have daily Mass, but it doesn’t deprive Sunday Mass of its special place.

How many times a week the Christians in Troas (where this verse is set) met, I don’t know, but this verse–at least in conjunction with other passages–has modest evidentiary value toward establishing Sunday as a distinctive Christian day of worship.

Here’s how that works:

You’ll note that the verse speaks of "the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread." This doesn’t prove that they didn’t break bread (including having Mass) on other days of the week, but it does at least raise the question of whether Sunday was a distinctive day for Christian worship.

The idea that Sunday might be such a day is strengthened by passages like Revelation 1:10, where St. John records that he was in the Spirit "on the Lord’s Day," which tells us that there was some kind of special Christian holy day.

When we put that together with 1 Corinthians 16:2, where Paul tells the Corinthians to set aside money for charitable collections on the first day of the week, the idea is further strengthened that Christians were distinctively meeting on Sundays.

Add to that the fact that Christ was raised from the dead on Sunday and that Christian tradition in later centuries has been virtually unanimous in regarding Sunday as the distinctive (though not exclusive) Christian day of worship and we have a pattern suggesting that this was already established in the days of the apostles, and Acts 20:7 fits into that pattern.

SEE HERE FROM CHURCH CHURCH FATHERS MATERIALS ON THIS POINT.

BTW, don’t fail to read the rest of the pericope that Acts 20:7 introduces! It’s one of my favorite places in the book of Acts.

It’s got a terriffic story of humanity, humor, horror, and . . . and . . . something else beginning with the letter H, I guess (though I don’t know what that might be).

I think it’s hilarious that Paul keeps talking after the dramatic events of the incident.

GET THE STORY.

Prayer Intentions?

A reader writes:

Would you please consider having a weekly prayer intentions post? Your blog is so well visited that it could only be a good thing couldn’t it? The com box could be open for visitors to leave their own intentions and prayer requests. I know it’s none of my business what you do with your blog, just thought I’d offer the suggestion 🙂

I’m open to doing this. I don’t know if weekly is the right frequency, though if I did I’d probably do it as the final post on Fridays (like this one, for example) so that the intentions folks posted would be on people’s minds going into the weekend and Sunday.

I’d hesitate to do this too frequently, because others have established prayer ministries, and what I’m doing here is different, but prayer is an important part of the Christian life, and my blog is a pretty diverse place, so I’d like to hear what readers think about this idea and how often it should be done.

Feel free to change your handle if you feel the need to do so to give your opinion (though let’s not have a dozen different anonymous commenters, okay?).

If we do do it, I’d encourage folks to be careful what private information they reveal about themselves. They might want to change their handles–particularly if they’re using their real names as handles–when they post prayer requests.

So whadda y’all think?

The Nature Of Hell

A reader writes:

I’m currently lutheran, seeking the Catholic Church. But there is one thing that’s bothering me; the definition of hell. I have allways found the orthodox understanding, that hell is the presence of God, or of the truth and light of God, and that heaven and hell is the same "place." While listening to a talk called "Time and Eternity," Peter Kreeft explained some of it. He said:

"[The truth of God] is the esential nature of both heaven and hell. Heaven is truth embraced, hell is truth refused. Thus we could even say that heaven and hell are the same objective reality, experienced in opposite subjective ways. Metaphoracally, heaven and hell are the same place. Think of the dwarfs at the end of The Last Battle [the seventh Narnia-book]. Or think of a rocker and a opera buff sitting side by side at a rock concert or an opera. What is hell to one, is heaven to the other. So the very fires of hell may consist of the eternal truth and goodness and love of God, that is ultimate reality; every creature’s ultimate other. Those wo have cultivated what Lewis calls «the taste for the other,» love it when it finally appears. Those who have supressed and resented this taste are shocked and squashed by the other. Like Sartre, in «No Exit,» proclaiming the presice creed of the damned; «hell is the others.»"

My question is: what is the position of the Catholic church? Would I be considered a "heretic" for believing this?

You wouldn’t be considered a heretic because the precise nature of hell has not been infallibly defined, and without an infallible definition there is no heresy.

That being said, the language that Peter uses in his explanation is at least different in tone than that which the Church conventionally uses. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

At first glance, this makes it sound like the opposite of what you are talking about: Hell as being removed from God’s presence rather than being confronted unpleasantly by God’s presence.

But the two are not necessarily incompatible. Apart from the Incarnation, God does not have a bodily, physical form from which one can be absent or present. It seems to me that speaking of being separated from God here refers to spiritual separation from him–some form of eternal opposition toward God rather than being in union with him in our hearts.

If the eternal separation of hell is understood this way then it could be compatible to say that all are ultimately confronted with the reality of God and, for those who are spiritually united (in harmony) with him it is a wonderful, glorious experience, while for those who are spiritually separated (in opposition) from him it is an unpleasant, painful experience.

I would therefore put the kind of thing that you and Peter are articulating in the category of permitted speculation about the nature of hell. It is one way of trying to envision and understand hell.

It does run against the grain of the language that the Church has traditionally used–which is based on Jesus’ language about the damned being thrown out into the darkness and thus shut out of the presence of the King–but this language is likely to contain a significant element of metaphor to help us have a feel for realities that go beyond our present ability to comprehend.

Hope this helps!

Read A Little Closer, James

A reader called my attention to the fact that James White has posted another piece involving me.

YOU CAN READ IT HERE.

In it, White complains about some ad copy for The Bible Answerman Debate referring to his ministry as a Fundamentalist one.

This is a fair complaint, and I’ll talk to the sales and marketing department about changing that.

He also refers to an article that I pointed him to concerning the types of formal debates that I accept.

Unfortunately, White followed what seems to be his frequent practice of not linking to the things that he’s talking about, which has the effect that it’s harder for his readers to read it for themselves and see if he’s handling it accurately.

That’s particularly unfortunate in this case because White is handling the article in a demonstrably inaccurate fashion. He complains about our exchange on The Bible Answerman being referred to as a debate and writes:

I would also say that if he [Akin] took his own writing [in the article in question] seriously he would stop calling his BAM appearance a "debate" of any kind. He demands equal time for a debate, rightly so. Nobody gets equal time on a call-in radio program. He demands a clear thesis that is debatable, rightfully so. Just what was the clear thesis statement on BAM again? Uh…right.

Sorry, James. You need to read a little more closely.

As my readers can see from the link I provided above to the article, the opening of the piece reads:

Debates are fun. They can be stimulating, challenging, and informative. No wonder many people find them the most exciting form of apologetics.

I am often asked whether I have any debates scheduled. The usual answer is no, as far as formal debates are concerned. My schedule is packed, and doing a formal debate takes a lot of preparation. I still do a good number of informal radio and television debates (they take far less preparation), but these aren’t as apologetically interesting. They don’t bring the same focus to a subject as a formal debate.

Over time I have developed my own guidelines for when and how to do formal debates. I’ve shared these with individuals who have asked for them, but putting them in print could benefit individuals who haven’t yet ventured into the world of debating but are contemplating it.

White has missed the fact that I clearly distinguish between formal debates (ones that have guaranteed equal time, thesis statements, etc.) and informal ones of the type that occur on radio and television, including such popular shows as . . . say . . . Hannity & Colmes, which has the word "DEBATE" featured prominently in its opening credits without, so far as I know, FoxNews getting a lot of viewers claiming that the guests on that show don’t debate issues.

That’s not saying that it’s good debating or helpful debating, but it’s debating.

St. Paul debated with folks in his day, but I severely doubt that he ever did anything in Lincoln-Douglas style.

So . . . I take what I’ve written quite seriously, James.

I just don’t hold that a debate has to have the kind of formal structure that is used by debating societies before it is worthy of the august name "debate."

Next time you want to publicly accuse me of being inconsistent with what I’ve written, try to make sure that I’m actually . . . y’know . . . being inconsistent.

Star Trek: Reboot The Universe

Yesterday I did a couple of posts about efforts by fans and now, possibly, by J. J. Abrams, to re-cast the characters of the original Star Trek series in order to allow new stories to be told about them more easily.

I did so to build up to this:

A PROPOSAL BY JOE STRACZYNSKI AND BRYCE ZABEL FOR THEIR VISION OF HOW STAR TREK SHOULD BE REJUVENATED.
(CHT to the readre who e-mailed!)

They sent this proposal to Paramount back in 2004 and . . . well . . . nothing came of it. But it’s an interesting proposal.

Basically, they propose rebooting the Star Trek universe so that the writers won’t be boxed in by all the massive continuity recent Star Trek writers have been burdened with. Giving the universe a fresh start would allow them to take the exciting, interesting things about the series that made it popular, without having to be constrained in the stories they can tell by all the material that later followed.

It would also let them re-cast the characters so that we could have new stories involving Kirk, Spock, and McCoy–the triumvirate at the heart of the original series.

The basic idea was to offer another take on the original five-year mission–this time giving it a definite story arc and retelling classic tales in a new way, while supplementing them with entirely new stories.

What they had in mind is quite interesting–putting a significant mystery at the heart of the series in a way that would tie it toghether. They write:

As noted above and as established in television history, Kirk was the youngest starship
captain in the Federation…but what led to this? We know that the Enterprise was sent out
to explore where no human had gone before…but if you stop and think about it for a
moment, isn’t that an odd assignment…to take one of the finest ships in the fleet, give it to
the youngest captain in the Federation, and tell them to just go drive around and see what
they can find?

It’s peculiar…until you allow for the possibility that they were looking for something
specific…something they had to keep a secret even from the rest of the crew.

The series treatment gives you a pretty good idea of what Straczynski and Zabel intended the secret to be, and it would have been interesting to see them get the chance to do it.

I found reading the series treatment quite interesting from a
literary perspective. Not only did they have to do a lot of
salesmanship as part of their attempt to convince network execs to give
them a chance, they also spent a surprising amount of time explaining
the concept of a reboot and how it would work. I guess studio execs in 2004 couldn’t be expected to be familiar with such concepts and had to be given a "let me lead you by the hand" explanation. (Probably not a bad idea. JMS tells horror stories about his initial attempts to get studio execs to understand the idea of Babylon 5 having rotational gravity.) Now you could just point to Battlestar Galactica, tho.

On his blog, where Dark Skies creator Bryce Zabel posted the treatment, he indicated that they also held back a lot of what they had in mind from the treatment, indicating that they had in mind a reboot somewhat like the Battlestar Galactica reboot that Ron Moore did, which would have resulted in a much grittier, edgier, and (frankly) interesting series than the kind of clean-as-a-whistle, formal, polyester kind of series that we got in Voyager (for example).

He also mentions that he’s had a whole new set of thoughts about how Star Trek could be revived since the 2004 proposal.

So be sure to

READ THE POST.

Star Trek XI

Ever since Star Trek Enterprise went and got itself cancelled (due to the bad decisions of its producers, such as not focusing on the Earth-Romulan War, and despite the much better fourth season that came too late to save it), Star Trek fans have had no new Star Trek to watch–except for fan productions like Star Trek New Voyages.

Now it looks like they may.

When Enterprise was cancelled it was stated (a) that there would indeed be future Star Trek productions (Paramount would be foolish to simply let the franchise die) but (b) there would be no new TV show for some time (Paramount would be foolish to put a new one on too soon, before the demand for one had had a chance to build again) and (c) the most likely next installment of the franchise would be a movie.

Rumors circulated around Hollywood for some time about what this movie might be about–possibly the Earth-Romulan War . . . possibly the story of how Kirk and Spock first met (these being the most logical two stories to try to tell next).

Now Paramount has officially announced the movie.

And it’s signed major talent to oversee it: J. J. Abrams, the guy behind Lost and Alias and Mission Impossible III.

Of course, the movie–or Abrams involvement in it–may not work out. Hollywood is a notoriously entropic place, meaning that deals have a tendency to fall apart there.

It sounds, at present, like Abrams and his team are currently thinking about doing the Kirk-Spock story, using new actors to play the young characters.

Which is why I mentioned New Voyages earlier: The New Voyages folks have decided that these characters are iconic enough in our culture that they should not be forever tied to the particular actors who originated them, the way Hamlet or MacBeth or the Mikado are not tied to the actors who originally played those parts.

In other words: Fans should learn to disassociate the characters from the actors.

This would allow the franchise to tell new stories about established and interesting characters and not have to invent and then sell to the fans a whole new cast every time one cast needed to retire.

Y’know: The way James Bond and Sherlock Holmes have been played by something like fifty guys each.

And there’s a reason I mention Star Trek XI and its possible recasting of major parts.

Star Trek New Voyages

I assume from various pieces of evidence I’ve encountered that there are a bunch of Star Trek fans out there making their own fan films based on the franchise.

I further assume that most of these are pretty lousy.

But I don’t know, because I haven’t seen them.

One fan-produced Star Trek effort has stood out, though, and I have actually seen some of it (though not enough to do a full review at this point).

The series is called Star Trek New Voyages, and it has managed to achieve unprecedented success.

The idea is that the series will use modern amateur film techniques (which are getting quite good) to produce the episodes that would have been needed to fill out the remaining two years of the original Enterprise’s "five year mission" (y’know: the two years they didn’t get to film because they got cancelled after season 3) and these episodes will be released direct-to-web.

The show thus features the original series cast of characters, though with different actors playing them (usually).

What makes the series unusual is the degree of quality that the folks behind it are trying to put into it. Their sets, for example, are virtually identical to those used on the original series–so identical, in fact, that when Star Trek Enterprise needed a copy of Mr. Sulu’s extendible console viewer thingie (as seen here) for their Mirror Universe episodes and the prop department didn’t have it any more, the producers of the TV show called the New Voyages folks to borrow the fans’ version of the prop rather than make their own.

The level of quality that they’re trying to put into the show has been so great (relative to other fan productions operating on a shoestring) that they’ve been able to get numerous professionals connected with the TV series to participate in New Voyages as well. This includes not only Gene Roddenberry’s son and actors who had minor roles in the original series but also writers from the original series, Next Gen, and Deep Space 9, including such noteables as D. C. Fontana and David Gerrold.

And now some of the main cast from the original series is getting into the act.

This September they’ll be releasing an episode in which Walter Koenig reprises his role as Checkov (an older version of himself who meets the younger version normally on New Voyages), and I’m anticipating that this episode will be used as Koenig’s swan song for the character (i.e., I’m expecting the older Checkov to die in it and thus tie up his character arc).

George Takei is also going to be reprising his role as Sulu in an upcoming episode.

Unfortunately, they’re only making one of these a year at present, so they may have to re-cast all the parts once again before they get to the end of the fifth year (if they get that far), but it’s interesting to note the success they’ve had thus far.

ABOUT THE PROJECT.

VISIT THE OFFICIAL WEB SITE.

Now, there’s a specific reason I mention all this.

Jimmy’s Roadside Science Experiments #1

Okay, I don’t really have a #2 planned for this series, but you never know.

Here’s what happened:

On my roadtrip to Texas last week, I took along some low-carb food in case I had trouble finding it on the road (in the sense of restaurants; I’m not talking about roadkill!). Among the things I took was a carton of low carb milk that I had opened and didn’t want to go to waste. I could take this because the carton in question had a screw top cap and so wouldn’t leak all over the place.

So, over the next day, I finished the container of low carb milk and tossed it to one side, figuring I’d throw it away the next time I stopped at a motel.

But before I did so, I noticed that something had happened to the milk carton: It had swelled up and now looked like this:
What had caused it to swell up? I wondered.

It couldn’t be the few remaining drops of milk in the carton releasing gasses, I thought. There weren’t enough of them to produce this kind of dramatic swelling.

Then I realized: I’m in an area where the elevations are above 4,000 feet. I bet that’s the reason why the carton bulked up so much.

The air in it from when I finished drinking the milk was put in at a lower altitude and then trapped in there when I sealed the carton.

But the air at that lower elevation was denser and there was more pressure on the outside of the carton from the air surrounding it. Now that I was at a higher elevation, the surrounding air pressure was lower and the carton was expanding due to the pressure of the denser air inside of it.

Or that was my hypothesis.

So I decided to do a little science experiment.

Instead of throwing the carton away, I kept it for another night and looked at it again in Dallas, which has an altitude of less than 500 feet. If my thesis was right then the drop of 3500 feet should cause the carton to de-inflate.

The next night the carton looked like this:

As you can see, it’s un-swelled itself considerably!

In fact, its sides are a bit sucked in now, and this was without opening it or doing anything to release the pressure in it.

In case it’s easier to see the difference, here’s a side-by-side comparison of the two:

So there you have it! Science is all around us–even when you don’t expect it!

There’s also a bit of relevance here to humans: It ain’t just milk cartons that expand or contract based on the air pressures found at different altitudes. Humans do, too. Our respiratory system is largely open since we’re breathing in and out all the time. Unless we’re holding our breath, our lungs won’t swell up or swell down this way based on rapid changes in air pressure, but other systems in our body aren’t so open: Our circulatory system, for example contains a certain volume of blood that is relatively constant and is used to operating at a particular level of pressure, and the fluids in our tissues don’t go in and out of us as quickly as air does when we breathe in and out. So the blood and other fluids in our bodies will be subject to at least some expansion and contraction the way the air in this milk carton was.

I assume that’s at least part of what’s going on when folks experience

ALTITUDE SICKNESS.