If I am confused it is JPII who confused me since it is his statement I cited.
By the object of a given moral act, then, one cannot mean a process or an event of the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world. Rather, that object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person. (Veritatis Splendor)
The ‘proximate end’ is not the intent, which relates to the ultimate end; it is the direct result of the act, not what the act ultimately produces.
If this was so then there could never be an acceptable act that had both a positive and a negative effect. Your definition insists that the negative effect is deliberately willed given that it is foreseeable. The church clearly accepts acts with bad consequences (PODE), therefore your definition cannot be true.