Pope accused of ignoring pleas to stop priest who molested 200 deaf boys

So why don't they do some kind of psychology test, to make sure officers aren't power hungry, or something? Can't they just let purely just people in? I mean, there has to be at least some people who actually do have a sense of justice...

You're assuming that there's some morally-right group that could make those decisions? That's the problem. Corruption starts from the top. Who is to say who is or isn't "purely just"? And even if someone claims to be able to determine as much, who is to say that they themselves are "purely just" and wont just let a bunch of corrupt people have the power?

Down the chain, someone has to be truly just for the rest of the powers beneath them to be just. Just as corruption starts from the top, the opposite is true. Except humans are inherently corrupt. A lot of people remedy this by claiming that at the top is God, who is obviously "purely just." Except if God doesn't exist, the opposite is true (that a human, susceptible to corruption and sin, is at the top and naturally the lower powers follow suit.) Which is exactly why religion is so dangerous. It gives this divine label to God, or Allah, or whoever else, but in reality they don't exist and some corrupt, or at the very least ignorant, human is calling the shots.*

*Edit: And while they're calling the shots, they're hiding behind a facade that they're actually doing the bidding of God, and anything they say is really the word of God. And thus, they are infallible.

Someone who watches too much Kamen Rider.
Get somebody who has a stupidly strong belief in humanity, love, and justice. Religion plays only 1/100th of a role in this.
I mean, to find someone purely just, all you have to do is get a bunch of people together and find the one good thing they all agree on, right? I mean, even though it's still controversial, right and wrong is sort of a natural thing, for most people.
Stealing from a poor person, who simply had bad luck/chance = wrong.
Steal from a rich person who hasn't done a thing in his life and has plenty of money to give around = Robin Hood.
In my opinion. But, like always, somebody's going to break in and kick my logic in the nuts any minute now. Either that, or get surprised by me being right about something once every 1000 posts.

But you're missing the point, you can't just "get somebody who has a stupidly strong belief in humanity, love, and justice." To find such a person, you would need to have such a person to even judge them as such. You're basing "right" and "wrong" far too much on your Self. In general, I don't think there really is such a thring as truly right or wrong, as far as morals go, because ultimately morals are defined by humans who are the ones who need the morals. And unfortunately, human nature seems to tend toward corruption, and in the most dangerous way where people tend to think that what they are doing is RIGHT (because, just like you, they're thinking of right and wrong in regards to their own opinions, or maybe even to the opinion of the majority, neither of which are a real gauge of morality (if there is even such a thing.)

It's like the chicken and the egg, almost. Which came first, the rules, or the rule-breakers who made the rules? Or something like that anyway. I'm kinda brain-dead at the moment.

It's like the chicken and the egg, almost. Which came first, the rules, or the rule-breakers who made the rules? Or something like that anyway. I'm kinda brain-dead at the moment.

I guess that makes sense... but, if a bunch of people got together and made rules, it would work, right? Multiple perspectives, all discussing what it was... at least, that way, there's a chance. Wait, I think that was the original constitution, huh? Mmm...
So, looks like we all dug ourselfs into a hole of fail, huh?