I suppose it comes back to the conundrum of whether someone is really mortally malicious to God simply because he voluntarily likes lots of sex with different women and has no conscious intention of hurting God at all.
Traditional theology seems to have answered that question with a clear yes.
And the reason is that its not about what we consciously “mean” at the time. Its about the inner teleology of these grave acts - the very consenting to them means we agree with their inherently destructive inner teleologies even if it is not our conscious teleology/purpose.
The two teleologies/trajectories are incompatible in some acts. Hence we can damn ourselves to hell without a single bad thought against God. It is the actions we choose that damn us and how freely we choose them and how understanding we are of their inherent teleologies.
So it seems the indirection in the “meaning” really needs to be found in the objective behaviour rather than the conscious intent of the actor if we are to play the PODE card.
That seems to be the basis of the recent “means” criterion added to the PODE since Aquinas’s time.
But as I tried to tease out from Rau, distinguishing an accidental evil means from an inherent one at times seems inconsistent.