More nowadays, having become deprecated. But in general Spaniards are recognizable by the amount of bad language. I was waiting in line at an American university’s cafeteria once and greeted the two guys in front of me with “hi! I’m from Pamplona, in grad school here. Where are you guys from?” “Uh… from Spain…” “I’d figured that from the amount of hostias and copones, dear, I meant the specifics.” (They’d been peppering their conversation with “hosts” and “chalices”: definitely not from Cuba!)
Yes. Nowadays since the majority of people only worry about the religious practices of others when it impinges upon them directly (whether it is in the form of interfaith marriages or of noisy holidays), the meaning is very much not the one that comes to mind. Most people will not even have vague memories of having learned this meaning; the exception is those of us who really like either history, language, or both.
The amount of usage applies to Spain (the words are used by people from other Spanish-speaking countries too, but not so casually) and, while the Quebecois are famous for their tabernacles, I’ve had some French coworkers whose speech dropped hôtes all over the factory floor. “Using religious elements as bad words” is common through cultures - what do you think “godamnit” or “damn” are?
Of note, depending on where exactly in France you are, “enculé” can also be used as a generic interjection, semi-positive adjective or as a punctuation mark equivalent to a full stop :).
Also there are endless, subtle variations one can apply to the baseword “con”. You could establish an entire typology of all cons : A “petit con” is an impertinent or cheeky person, and depending on your intonation can be spoken in spite or in praise/enjoyment of said p’tite connerie. A “sale con” is a particularly vicious brand of asshole. A “gros con” for his part is pig ignorant, often prone to violence (even moreso a “gros con de base”) and likely racist/misogynist ; whereas a “grand con” is more aloof or airheaded but not necessarily malevolent. A “gentil con” is naive or idealistic but harmless or even cute ; a “con-con” is equally harmless, keeps doing or saying dumb stuff but at least he means well (down South the “con-con” morphs into a “couillon”, which I assume is derived from the Italian coglione). A “vieux con” will never ever change his mind, will tell you the same anecdote a dozen times and presumably votes hard right while a “jeune con” will know better soon enough, just you wait. A “pauvre con” is just pitiful, useless all around ; whereas “Ducon” or “Ducon-Lajoie” can apply to just about anybody - or even simply be a slightly pejorative moniker applied to someone whose name you do not know. If “Dupont” is “John Doe”, “Ducon” is “Joe Six-Pack” or “that guy” more or less.
And then there’s the friendly “haha, t’es trop con !” when someone you like makes you laugh with a clever joke.
Another useful one is “bâtard” - literally it means, well, a bastard in the geneallogic sense ; but more generally denotes some low-down type of underhanded or back-stabby bastard - he’s specifically distinct from the various types of “cons” in that he can be very smart. The hallmark of the “bâtard” is that he means ill to you or your friends and achieves it in unfair or cowardly ways. There again, a typology applies : a “sale bâtard” isn’t quite a “gros bâtard” isn’t exactly a “petit bâtard”. You can be a “sale petit bâtard” but no one has ever heard of a “vieux gros bâtard”. It’s all very specific :). French profanity is nothing if not surgically precise.
A “branleur” is a wanker, with the same general lazy/shiftless connotation as the British idiom.
As for the OP’s specific requests, “trou du cul” or “trou de cul” means asshole, “tête de bite” would be dickhead (although I’m not sure the content of the words match exactly, if you follow my meaning) but neither is very commonly used any more.
Be very, very careful with that last one however. It’s one of them false friends - in English (particularly American English) sumbitch is a mild one, to the point of not even being insulting any more. “Fils de pute” however ? Them’s strong fighting words.
Swearing in the form of blasphemy is of course a well-known phenomenon. However I, being from a highly-predominantly-Protestant country, had long never come across this particularly Catholic variant which involves the assorted “gear” for celebrating Mass. (It seems not to occur on our neighbouring, mostly Catholic, island of Ireland – though maybe Irish Dopers will chime in, informing me that I’m wrong there.)
I first became aware of of this particular bad-language mode, in reading Harry Turtledove’s “Southern Victory” or “TL191” alternative-history series, an element of which is set in Quebec – historically (including, in real history) an ardently Catholic region. On my thus reading of the phenomenon, it struck me as a marvellously weird and imaginative swearing-of-the-blasphemous-kind variant.
Ah, yes, good one - but I wouldn’t really call it an invective per se. You can absolutely describe a third person as “c’est un gros beauf” to someone, but for some reason it’s not used *at *people. Possibly because, well, what’s the point of even talking to a beauf’ ?