You described it as his "apparent hobby". If I asked about what you'd said concerning your apparent hobby of raping little girls, would that be just an innocent question?
has he denied committing such behavior
Have you denied beating your wife?
I see no proof or accusation that he HAS been involved in anything, or protected anyone
Fine, then you'll consider that most of us consider the operative pattern to be "innocent until proven guilty," not "guilty unless solitas can be convinced you're innocent".
And no, I don't think your apparent hobbies involve raping little girls, nor do I think Bishop Henry's involve raping boys.
Meaning: the apparent hobbies of some of his fellow employees.
Many of them have adopted policies of "don't tell if they don't have warrants" but the ones exemplifying Character and Honesty _have_ stepped to the front and affirmed their innocence (regardless of not being accused) and have spoken against those who _have_ committed crimes.
There is a big difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "under suspicion". Courts and cops operate the same way: punishment cannot be meted out to those not yet found guilty; HOWEVER, being suspect of something based upon contact with guilty individuals and lack of evidence to the contrary IS justifiable and the personal responsibility of the individual to do what he can to help provide information to clear himself of suspicion.
If YOU were under suspicion of a crime, wouldn't YOU explain yourself and do what you could to clear suspicion? 'Innocent until proven' is a right; 'not under suspicion' isn't.