Someone help me out?
Is this an apology?
Is it a retraction?

I think the key to it is this sentence...

"I categorically state I have never believed that any financial offer was accepted by any of those who represent the Global South on any other than terms of Christian outreach."

I would call this a clarification. ++Eames is trying to make his message as clear as possible. It is not an apology or a retraction.

The Diocese of Washington quoted Eames as saying he was “quite certain” that many church leaders in the developing world had been offered financial inducements to distance themselves from the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. “I think it is happening, I just don't think it is moral,” Eames said. “Is it the might of finance that will influence a theological outlook, and then that outlook come to dominate he Communion? “It raises a serious question for me: what is the real nature of their faith and their Anglicanism? It is certainly different from mine.” If Eames said that it is a terrible allegation...

But now Eames' makes a statement that sounds on face value like a denial that he said this: "I categorically state I have never believed that any financial offer was accepted by any of those who represent the Global South on any other than terms of Christian outreach". But this is in fact unclear language, as Wade Bond has pointed out.. A non-native english speaker might take it to mean that Eames believes that no financial offer was accepted by any of those who represent the Global South for use for anything other than Christian outreach, whereas it could also mean the "the financial offers were always accepted by those who represent the Global South *nominally* for Christian Outreach, [but we all know better].."

Is this the sort of sophisticated word-artistry that other primates have complained about in PM communiques ? Make it sound like one thing, but on closer inspection imply something else ?

I find the latest comments by Eames unreconcilable with what he is quoted to have said during the question and answer session at the Virginia seminary. I refer readers to the web page of the Diocese of Washington, where the Communications Staff for the Diocese reports the following in a 7 October news article about the Eames presentation:

During an interview at the college, Eames expressed concern over the role that wealthy conservative donors in the United States were playing in the current controversy. He said he was “quite certain” that many church leaders in the developing world had been offered financial inducements to distance themselves from the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.

“I think it is happening, I just don't think it is moral,” Eames said. “Is it the might of finance that will influence a theological outlook, and then that outlook come to dominate he Communion?

“It raises a serious question for me: what is the real nature of their faith and their Anglicanism? It is certainly different from mine.”