Cutting state funding for churches

Key points of the debate

Parliament debated the fixed-term funding cuts to the statutory societal tasks of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Orthodox Church. Government parties considered the cuts necessary to balance public finances, while the opposition opposed them or demanded that the cuts be halved. The debate was contentious and strictly divided between the Government and the opposition.

• –Will the cuts lead to higher burial fees or tax increases?
• –Should funding be cut before the promised study on church duties is completed?
• –Is the cut excessive in relation to the growing need for societal tasks?

• National Coalition PartyIn favour

  Cutting funding is a justified part of overall responsibility and balancing of central government finances. The group believes societal tasks will be handled more efficiently in the future.

  ”Päinvastoin hallituksen linja lähtee siitä, että vakaata taloutta rakennetaan yhdessä niin, että jokainen kantaa vastuuta omien tehtäviensä mukaan.”

• Finns PartyIn favour

  Because of the difficult state financial situation, churches must also take part in savings efforts. The growing costs of burial services will also be restrained by the increasing prevalence of cremations.

  ”Esityksen tarkoituksena on hyvin yksinkertaisesti ilmaistuna olla säästötoimi. Tiedämme, missä kunnossa Suomen talous on, ja myös kansankirkkojen on säästötalkoisiin osallistuttava.”

• Social DemocratsAgainst

  The cut proposed by the Government is excessive and threatens to raise burial fees and burden people on low incomes. The group proposed halving the cut to leave room for adaptation in church activities.

  ”Esityksessä esitetty leikkaus on tässä taloustilanteessa ylimitoitettu eikä huomioi riittävästi yhteiskunnallisten tehtävien kasvavaa tarvetta.”

• Centre PartyAgainst

  Cuts targeting parishes are the wrong value choice at a difficult time. Parishes do irreplaceable work in helping low-income people and maintaining culturally and historically significant buildings.

  ”Tällaisena aikana, mitä me nyt elämme, kun aika on hyvin ahdistava, pidän seurakunnilta leikkaamista hyvin arveluttavana tekona.”

• GreensAgainst

  The proposal endangers the funding of burial services and unreasonably shifts costs onto relatives or church tax payers. Any changes should only be made on the basis of a separate study and in cooperation with the church.

  ”Mahdolliset muutokset kirkon rahoitukseen ja vastuisiin koskien julkisten tehtävien hoitoa tulisi tehdä hyvässä yhteistyössä kirkon kanssa ja vasta edellä mainitun selvityksen valmistuttua.”

• Left AllianceAgainst

  The bill should be rejected, as it will lead to higher burial fees or to church tax being used to cover the burials of non-members. Funding should not be cut before a more comprehensive study.

  ”Edellä olevan perusteella ehdotankin, että lakiehdotukset hylätään.”

This digest was generated by AI from 13 speeches 13 Sep 2026. Group positions are read from the speeches, not from votes; quotations were checked verbatim against the record.