This is what a political scandal looks like in plain English: a church had to tell its own members that it does not sell or share their personal information after a campaign mailer tied to two local politicians landed in mailboxes.
That church was Saint Pius X.
Those politicians were Amy Drake and Jamie O’Brien.
Saint Pius did not issue a soft statement about vague “concerns” or generic “confusion.” It told parishioners that “several parishioners reported receiving a political mailing from candidates in St. Joseph County” that “could have used a Saint Pius X mailing list.” The church further noted that “the two candidates identify themselves as parishioners in the mailing,” then delivered its central denial in unmistakable terms: “Saint Pius staff does not sell or share our mailing list or any of your personal information with any person or organization.” The response from Republican Party leadership was similarly direct. Jacqueline Horvath, chairwoman of the St. Joseph County Republican Party, said the party “strongly opposes the unauthorized use of email or membership lists,” particularly those associated with churches holding 501(c)(3) status.
That is a scandal.
Not because Saint Pius had a court order. It did not. Not because every factual question has been resolved. It has not. This is a scandal because a Catholic parish and the county GOP both found it necessary to distance themselves from the same campaign mailing. That does not happen by accident. That does not happen over nothing.
And it did not happen around two strangers.
Drake and O’Brien were on the mailer together. They identified themselves as Saint Pius parishioners. They are already joined politically through overlapping fundraising, shared branding and the bluntly named “The Drake and O’Brien PAC.” A separate fundraising letter signed by Congressman Rudy Yakym and O’Brien urged support for Drake and pledged matching money for her campaign. Their alliance is not a rumor. The alliance is formal, public and built into the machinery of their politics.
So when Saint Pius raised the possibility that its mailing list could have been used, it was not pointing toward some loose coincidence. It was pointing toward a political operation.
Call them Amy Snake and Shady Jamie O’Brien if you want. The nicknames are the least important part of the story. The conduct is the story. The pattern is the story. The entitlement is the story.
Start with Jamie O’Brien.
He has spent years showing voters exactly how he operates. He is running for office while facing an active state review into whether he improperly received taxpayer-funded retirement benefits. He physically filed an election challenge aimed at knocking Republican incumbent Dan Schaetzle off the ballot. The St. Joseph County Election Board rejected that challenge 3 to 0. A judge later denied the appeal on March 12th. And while serving as attorney for the county council, O’Brien sent a message telling members to “make it clear that Amy (Drake) is great and the problem is 100% Dan (Schaetzle),” even though O’Brien’s job was to impartially represent all nine council members, and not act as Amy Drake’s personal defense attorney.
Any one of those facts would normally raise eyebrows. Taken together, they describe a politician with a taste for blurred lines.
Then there is Amy Drake.
She already told voters what she thinks of South Bend. Drake was quoted calling South Bend a “Democrat shithole.” That was a window into her character. There is nothing especially churchgoing about that language. But when campaign season arrived, she was still willing to tout her church attendance while mailing campaign materials to the South Bend addresses she detests.
That is not leadership. That is opportunism.
The public should not ignore the pattern because the wording of St. Pius’s press release was careful. The wording was careful because the church was being careful. But careful language can still be devastating. In this case, it was. Saint Pius effectively told parishioners that a political mailing tied to Drake and O’Brien raised enough concern that the church had to publicly deny providing the information behind it.
The question is not whether Drake and O’Brien can lawyer their way through the wording.
The real question is whether voters are comfortable returning two politicians to public office after a Catholic parish had to reassure its members that it did not give out their personal information following a campaign mailer bearing their names.
If the Catholic Church felt the need to distance itself from Amy Drake and Jamie O’Brien, their own parishioners, voters have every right to ask what else was happening behind the scenes.