Because organizations should be set up to minimize flaws, not to perpetuate and cover them up.
A person who steals a watch because they want to sell it for money is flawed.
An organization that arranges hundreds of thefts, kills witnesses, silences jurors and bribes police and politicians is actively corrupt.
One causes harm simply out of weakness for personal gain. The other not only causes harm, but actively seeks to further perpetuate harm and protect the perpetrators of it.
No. But millions upon millions of people trust that it is.
That depends. How many organizations do you know saught not only to hide peadophiles within it, but actively saught to protect them and silence their victims?
Better analogy:
You are an apple farmer in a community in which apple pies are the main delicacy and a huge source of income. You examine your bushells and find that, of the one hundred apples you have, only 70 are good. Rather than admit this to the community and risk a slightly less impressive harvest, you tell them all your apples are good. They then take all the apples and make pies out of them. Then some people get sick because they ate your bad apples. You tell these people that it couldn't possibily be due to your apples, because your apples are magic and are never bad. Someone's child dies after eating a pie made from your apples. You warn their parent that they should never tell anyone about this otherwise they might never get your apples again. When health inspectors visit, you pay them to tell everyone all of your apples are safe. You remove all evidence of ever having any bad apples and continue to draw funds from the community by selling them bad apples every season.
Does that sound like the natural result of "less than perfect farming"? Or does it sound like you are actively perpetuating harm for your own ends and setting up a system to remove any accountability on your part?