Kev, The word 'specific' is a crucial part of that sentence.
I think you have missed it and therefore misunderstood it.
Making sense is not dependent on morality.
For a thing to be meaningful, it must make sense to the perpertrator, regardless of its moral interpretation by others.
Likewise, in the arts:
Ravel's harmony does not make sense in Bach's harmonic world. Rock music doesn't make sense performed in swing time.
But they make sense within the strictures of the musical piece itself.
If it didn't, it would have no meaning to those engaged in it.
I'm in closer agreement about the business of 'good nonsense', but with a caveat so huge it probably means I disagree with you.
Alice in Wonderland is an obvious and generally understood example of 'good nonsense'. The writings of Italo Calvino or Paul Auster are a little lesser known.
But it only appears to be nonsense. (That is not meant to be as glib as it sounds!)
Alice in Wonderland, and this illustrates my point perfectly, does make sensuous sense once digested. It feels complete, resolved. It is therefore sensuously meaningful.
A painting that affects us deeply does not 'make sense' in any other way than this sensuous 'understanding' of its sense of resolution.