Smiles, Promises, and Empty Pockets: Where Did the Money for Four Burials at New Marcha End Up?

My beloved, It has come to our attention that Slobodan Pavlovic—the man who has maintained the cemetery at New Marcha for years, whose own father rests on that very ground, and who received a letter personally signed by the Bishop giving him 21 days to remove equipment from the New Marcha Monastery property—dug at least four graves at that cemetery, and has not been paid for a single one of them. The first of these four unpaid burials took place back on January 19—meaning this is not a recent oversight, but a practice that has been going on for months.

The families paid. That is not in dispute; it has been verified. Each of those four families paid the church the required fee for their loved one's burial. The question that remains is simple: where did that money go, if not to the man who actually did the work?

Slobodan has also not been paid for cemetery maintenance since April of this year. Not for grave digging. Not for mowing. Not for any of the work that makes that cemetery accessible to families coming to visit their departed loved ones.

And let us remember—there was a "reconciliation" in June. The Bishop, smiling, explained to Slobodan that he personally had not ordered any of this, and that these decisions were made without his knowledge. Slobodan, in good faith, accepted that explanation. The smile seemed genuine. The words sounded reassuring.

Except it turns out the smile meant nothing, and the words were just words. Unpaid grave diggings continued after that meeting. Cemetery maintenance remained unpaid after that meeting. The "reconciliation" train came and went, and the balance remained exactly what it was before the smile: zero.

And the accounting records show that they used to know exactly what they owed.

There is a record from December 2024 in which the administration itself outlines its payment practices: they paid for erecting a gate and adding eight rows of burial plots—an $83,000 project in total, of which $58,550 had been paid up to that point. It was explicitly noted that Slobodan also digs graves and mows the lawn, with those costs totaling $15,240—tracked as a separate line item, apart from the larger project, "so it is clear when the major project is paid off."

So back in 2024, this worked exactly as it should: the work got done, the expense was tracked as a distinct, named line item, and it was paid. The administration knew what it owed and to whom it was owed. This was not a vague or disputed expense category.

And then, starting in April of this year, that very same, well-established, previously paid line item simply ceased to exist. Not a reduced amount. Not a dispute over the figure. Nothing. Slobodan continues to dig graves and maintain the cemetery, while receiving nothing from the administration that knew precisely how to record and pay for it in 2024.

It is difficult to claim confusion when their own written records prove they once knew exactly what they were doing.

The church charges $2,800 for a burial if the deceased was a parish member, and over $3,000 if they were not—each rate determined individually per deceased individual, not per family as a whole. For just these four known burials, that means the church collected somewhere between $11,200 and over $12,000, depending on the status of each deceased. Slobodan, the man who actually dug those graves, has not seen a single dollar of that money.

This is not a matter of sentiment. Slobodan performs a job—digging graves, grounds maintenance—and he should be paid for that work, just like anyone else who does what is asked of them. The families paid the church specifically for that work. The question remains simple: why, then, hasn't he seen a single cent?

And where is D.K., the manager of New Marcha, in all of this?

What exactly is his job, if not to keep track of what has been paid, what hasn't, and why? How is it possible for a manager to overlook months of unpaid labor and thousands of dollars collected from families? It is either total incompetence in managing the monastery property, or a deliberate choice to look the other way. There is no third option.