This is the following definition of a category that I'm using
Now correct me if I'm wrong but nothing explicitly in the definition of a category above states that for any two objects $X$, $Y \in \text{Obj}(C)$ there must exist a morphism $f \in \text{Hom}_C(X, Y)$ correct?
But under the text describing composition, there most exist a morphism $f \in \text{Hom}_C(X, Y)$ for any two objects $X$, $Y \in \text{Obj}(C)$, because we need that morphism for composition. So there can't be any empty $\text{Hom}_C(X, Y)$ classes correct?
My assertion in the above paragraph would then trivially prove the following.
Let $C$ be a category and suppose $f \in \text{Hom}_C(X, Y)$ for some objects $X, Y \in \text{Obj}(C)$, then there exists a morphism $g \in \text{Hom}_C(Y, X)$
Has everything I said above been correct?

Yes, it may happen that $\operatorname{Hom}_C(X,Y)$ is the empty class.
No, that does not invalidate the part about composition. If $\operatorname{Hom}_C(X,Y)=\emptyset$, then it is vacuously true that for every $f\in \operatorname{Hom}_C(X,Y)$ and $g\in \operatorname{Hom}_C(Y,Z)$, we have a composite morphism $g\circ f$.
An example is the category of fields and field homomorphisms: If two fields have different characteristic, there is no morphism between them.