I apologize if that sounds dismissive (it's not intended to) but your post is not more than the usual vague FUD. Take a look at so-called 'professional' cryptographers and their libraries, and you'll find that practically all of their code had severe bugs. Professionals make errors like everyone else, 'professional' just means you're being paid for it. You will have a hard time finding a professional and widely used crypto library that wasn't essentially compromised in one of its functions at one time or another. Not only that, professionals from the
closed-source department have a long history of coming up with compromised or bogus, sometimes even ridiculous cryptographic algorithms and implementations. Two typical examples: CMEA cell phone encryption, and the Crypto AG backdoor debacle.
Surely people who invent and implement cryptographic algorithms for a living can be expected to be better than your run-off-the-mill programmer, but as I've said elsewhere implementing crypto is also not a black art. It requires about the same level of skill as e.g. implementing a production-ready low-level network protocol or a file system. That rules out many programmers but not all. That concerns implementations. As for algorithms, their development requires extensive experience in cryptanalysis (not just applied cryptography!). Some pros have that, others don't.
Last but not least, many popular and widely used crypto libraries started as a side hobby. For example, libtomcrypt started that way. In fact, many widely respected cryptographers started as hobbyists. For example, Bruce Schneier. Of course, the ones who are widely accepted as peers are also those who are in the 'hire me as a consultant, not the other guy' business, and they will naturally advise everyone to not roll their own crypto but to rely on their expertise...