Does someone know the term for Fascism that is anti Nazi and Catholic?

I feel like you are operating under the common misconception that corporatism as practiced in Portugal had anything to do with modern business corporations. Both words come from the same Latin root (corp=body) but have nothing to do with each other. Corporations derive from that root because they are fictional bodies created and empowered by a legal system to shield their owners from liability.

When used in corporatism, the root refers to corporate groups in another sense (unions, agricultural estates, professional organizations, guilds, universities, military) which engage in cooperation which is mediated by the state, with each of these 'bodies' sending representatives to present their various interests when there is a dispute about resource allocation. It is an integral part of Catholic social teaching which emphasizes class cooperation, as opposed to zero-sum competition or class conflict. Nothing to do with modern corporations at all.

I really don't see this as severe at all considering the modern paradigm under which we operate, in which women have an extremely difficult time raising children, something most of them want to do but can't because a two-income household is now the norm. If anything, Salazar offered an eminently sensible alternative - either work in your profession or become a mother - but he took the hard stance that the expectation that a women should raise children and work is not something that should ever be allowed to be normalized. Being an economist, he likely foresaw the inevitable results of that: cratering wages in respect to cost of living, the disruption of family formation, and an essential doubling of working class exploitation and the class conflict/hatreds that this would engender. Not to mention all the intangible value that would be wiped out - women serve a vital social function in any society and are often the glue that ties a community together. If they need to work fulltime to survive, those communities often suffer from alienation and dysfunction.

You seem to be searching for a label that expresses your desire for spiritual unity, national cohesion, moral order, and an economy not dominated by greed — but without the baggage of historical fascism or Nazism.

But the structure you keep describing — one in which religion is enforced, dissenting beliefs are suppressed, families and communities are shaped by law, and the nation comes before the individual — is authoritarian collectivism. The fact that you oppose genocide or racism doesn’t make it morally neutral. Every authoritarian society needs a “threat” to unify against — and if it’s not race, it becomes “hedonism,” “false faiths,” or “modernism.”

You may be right to criticize capitalist greed, spiritual emptiness, and social decay — many people do. But turning to state-enforced morality or a single “true faith” as the solution doesn’t solve those problems. It just replaces freedom with coercion, and difference with conformity.

Historically, movements that began with “moral order” as their goal — from Franco to the Taliban — ended up crushing the very souls they claimed to save. So while you’re trying to carve out a new label for your beliefs, I’d caution that the content matters more than the name. A rose by any other name is still a system of repression if it denies freedom of belief, association, and identity.

So 1 thing, I must be careful what I type. I am European in citizenship and residence and chats like this on this side towards the so called Far Right require one to be very careful what they type if they don't want to be arrested. Especially when written openly rather than 1 on 1 adult to adult.

I will explain 2 things:

My stance is one where the enemy you speak of is the Devil and what he represents morally. It also is one where tribalism is somewhat encouraged but never should it come before the tribe of the nation.

What I know is the left lies constantly. They say community and helping poor comes before helping family yet if someone had a family name like Himmler or had ties to family that did X Y Z, they'd judge 100% biased and ruin the person's political career and life over tribal ties and assumptions. I also have met enough left liberals and harsher socialists to know they both put family very high in general and side like a cult with their friends and family abusing others, bullying them, alienating them etc.

I have seen that the right wing is just a lotore honest when it comes to tribalism. They fully admit they are unfair to those outside their 'people' and the lie the left has is one that gaslights a lot of cocnerns with issues to make the issue seem to either not exist or to make the whiners seem fake.

The same people saying they are truly selfless and care for all minorities and ibdividuals even, ridicule the right wing when they care about the type of trans who grow to regret what has now permanently been done to their body. The same people that say they care about all people equally and want a poor person  giving almost 0 to the economy and community would almosy T never help a rat, cat (maybe cat), pig or ant to the same level due to the exact trivalist (by species) and harsh outlook the right wing admit they have.

I appreciate your honesty and the care you’re taking to speak cautiously. That said, I want to gently challenge a few of the ideas you’ve laid out — not to attack you, but to invite reflection and maybe expand the lens a bit.

You mentioned that you don’t see freedom as inherently good — and that’s a serious philosophical position. But if freedom isn’t good, what replaces it? A system where only one set of moral values is permitted? Where dissent is punished in the name of unity or virtue? History shows us what happens when societies go that route — whether under fascist regimes, theocratic states, or absolute monarchies. Without freedom, power doesn’t just guide — it crushes. And it rarely crushes the corrupt first. It crushes the different.

You also talked about tribalism — and I think that’s worth unpacking more deeply. Political scientist Benedict Anderson introduced the concept of imagined communities to describe how large-scale groups like nations and religions function. The idea is that we can feel strong emotional loyalty to a group of people — like a nation — even though we’ll never meet most of them. Saying “I am Italian” or “I am Christian” connects you to millions or even billions of people. That connection feels real, and it has meaning, but it’s also imagined, because it isn’t built on face-to-face relationships — it’s built on shared symbols, narratives, and values.

In contrast, our real communities — the ones we live in and experience daily — are smaller: our families, friends, coworkers, neighbors. These are the people who shape us most directly. But what’s interesting is that there’s an even larger imagined community that almost everyone belongs to, whether they recognize it or not: the working class. That’s not a political slogan — it’s a simple fact. The vast majority of people on Earth live by their labor, not by owning property or extracting profit. Whether you’re a religious man in Europe, a secular woman in Asia, or a family farmer in Africa — chances are you are working to survive under conditions shaped by global capitalism, not your race or your faith.

That shared material condition is a more meaningful connection than many of the identity-based tribes we inherit. You might never meet a factory worker in Mexico or a nurse in Kenya, but you probably share more in common with them — in how you live, work, and struggle — than with any billionaire or political leader who claims to speak for your country, culture, or religion.

So tribalism may feel natural — humans do seek belonging. But the question isn’t whether we feel connected to a tribe. It’s: which tribes help us become more just, more compassionate, more equal — and which ones divide us, isolate us, or encourage cruelty? If nationalism or religious identity leads us to justify oppression or excuse domination, we’ve chosen the wrong tribe. But if we can begin to imagine the working class — not as an enemy of tradition, but as the true global community — we might begin to see solidarity, not suspicion, as the way forward.

Finally, you mentioned Satan as a moral enemy — the source of chaos, deception, and pride. I don’t disagree with the symbolism, but I’d ask this: is it Satanic to question authority? Or is it Satanic to cling to power, demand obedience, and silence others in the name of order? When we reject freedom entirely, we don’t just avoid chaos — we risk becoming the very tyrants we fear. That’s why I believe freedom, while messy, is worth defending — not as an excuse for selfishness, but as the ground where mutual respect and shared dignity can grow.