Everything is absolutely true, according to the author's meaning. Sometimes it's hard to understand the meaning, but nevertheless it's true. On top of that, there might be other moral or spiritual meanings. The gospels, on the other hand, are written as histories. It is very clear from the way they are written, that the author intends to write down something that really happened.
Catholics certainly do take the resurrection, and everything else in the gospels, as historical.
These are things such as different phrasing used, things being in different orders, etc. These discrepancies, however are only apparent, and the early Church Fathers went to lengths to show why the gospel accounts differed, and how they are not in fact contradictory. Each evangelist is emphasizing something different, but is speaking the truth and is finally in harmony with the others. There is room for varying opinions about those books. There is no room, however, for saying the Resurrection didn't really happen, and that was explicitly condemned by several popes.