If you denounce a profession because it does not really practice in the way it deliberately gives a public image of practising, and there is no innate necessity for that behaviour it's just human corruption, then you still got into it for the right reasons.
e.g. if you became a cop hoping to protect from crime the personal fairness of folks' lives, and found that policing decisions were instead taken by a crowd control attitude to society's overall stability without a value of personal fairness. Your hopes were right and were how it should be, while how it is is a choice not a necessity.
An example very relevant to all religion/atheism debates. If you become a scientist, expecting science to be the impartial investigation of truth that it should be and it claims to be, and instead you experience the peer review system and the editorial bias of scientific journals, forbidding research into disapproved things and publication of disapproved conclusions.