Is Frankl Being Consistent When He Says That We Cannot

Is Frankl being consistent when he says that we cannot understand the ultimate meaning of our suffering but goes on to recount stories of people finding meaning in such suffering? (Consider, for example, his stories of the elderly doctor who mourns his wife's death, Frankl's own concentration camp story, and the rabbi who grieves because he cannot become a father again.) If you think that he is being consistent, explain the apparent discrepancy. If you think he is being inconsistent, show how you think his argument might be altered to avoid contradictions.