I think the above statement is accurate. I'm not saying that because the Catholic Church moved an obelisk to the Vatican that it is proof they have embraced pagan religion and called it Christian... Only that it is not an unreasonable argument toward that suspicion. It may be explained (as some have done in this post). My original point is that there are many things, Obelisk included, that are not inconsistent with the doctrine of the RCC having been tollerent of certain aspects of paganism. I think there have been some reasonable explainations of the Obelisk given which would be contrary to that doctrine.
As per me being ignorant, you are correct, I am quite ignorant. There is much I do not know. I would assume you are also ignorant of many things. So unless you are speaking from some omniscience that I don't posses, or have personal knowlege of the things which you profess, other than having believed what someone told you, calling me ignorant is nothing more than diversionary hypocrisy.
If you are saying that I am totally ignorant of paganism, you are greatly mistaken.