On Thursday, both Jamiel and Randall Terry gave extraordinary interviews to Beliefnet editor Paul O'Donnell. In his interview, Jamiel explains that he wrote the article because "I wanted my father to see I'm not going to hell," but says that he still loves his father. Below, Randall says that Jamiel is "bringing great sadness to our home and embarrassment to our family."
How did you find out about Jamiel's article?
Four weeks ago he told me they had contacted him, and he was entertaining the idea.
He told me he approached them with an email.
Yeah, but that's not what he told me. I found that out yesterday.
Do you understand his reasons for publishing it?
Well they shift from day to day, so what are the ones you heard?
He said it was part of his own journey, part of his own acceptance of his homosexuality. I guess he also wanted to be an example to other people who grew up in his situation.
I don't accept that. I know that if he had wanted to do that, he would have done it without going after the money that was given to him on the basis of my name.
What effect do you think this has on your name, or on you?
I think that it garners sympathy for me. But that's not the point. The point is that it is a betrayal of family dignity and family boundaries for money. He gave CNN pictures of our family. That's just unbelievable to me.
|"I cannot have him in my home while I know that at any point, he could take pictures and sell them."|
Do you think he's in financial straits?
Of course he is.
Why answer his story with your own--in The Washington Times and on WorldNet Daily?
As I said in the piece, I'm doing it to jolt other parents and to embarrass those who have exploited my son, to call their credibility into question. To show that what was presented on CNN and what was presented in Out magazine are just not accurate renditions of what's going on.
Jamiel seems to think that what you had written just furthers the breach between you two. Do you think so?
For me, the issue is that there has been an unbelievable lack of honesty. For me the breach is that I cannot have him in my home while I know that at any point, he could take pictures and sell them. I'm not going to have that kind of intrusion into my home.
I have no idea. I'm not going to assume there isn't. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Knowing him, do you think his motivation is purely money?
Motives are known only to God. Behaviors are weighable by us.
In your piece you contested Jamiel saying that he later returned to the Roman Catholic Church, though he rejects papal authority and teaching on family issues. One would almost read that as a defense of those dogmas and those teachings.
I am not Roman Catholic. I have a deep respect for the Roman Catholic Church and I'm a student of Roman Catholic theology. For me the issue was that it was disingenuous, that it was deceitful. It was Out magazine's effort to drag the Roman Catholic Church into this debate.
When you say this has generated sympathy for you, what form has that taken?
I've gotten hundreds of emails and lots of phone calls.
You say Jamiel's teen years were "a mix of happy times, half truth and a double life," and his behavior grew worse in college. What are you referring to?
I'm not going to undress my son in the media. It's been a very downhill spiral for him.