It’s a pity that he did not elaborate, because it would have raised a very interesting subject. Not homosexuals, but eunuchs, were by far more destructive and dangerous to a nation.
In those empires that employed them, eunuchs seemed to be the perfect bureaucrat. And to some extent that was correct. However, all soon realized that eunuchs should never be given real power, because power is “their coin”. Without sex, their lust is for power, and if they see it, they will work unceasingly to get it.
While homosexuals were always “there”, they were also subject to similar demands from sex. If anything, more so, because they were rarely satisfied with monogamy, having no reason to be.
But their actual impact is difficult to divine, because there was less of a dividing line. As the saying went: “Women for children, but boys for pleasure.”
Eunuchs were used well into the Byzantine period and later, but they weren’t particularly numerous. They may have played a role in corruption, but the issue is really dealing with homosexuality and immorality, which does have a marked influence on a society on all levels and was remarked upon by contemporaries in Periclean Athens, for example, and by St. Augustine in his Confessions.
You’ll also notice Nixon’s point just after Archbishop Sheen’s. They’re all making the same argument for immorality, and homosexuality, as the source of the decline. of course, there’s also Sodom and Gomorrah...