Well, there’s a long history behind that, but for a group that demands the literal interpretation of some passages that should not be interpreted literally because Jesus said so, AND the fact that they claim to hold the very words spoken by Jesus in the highest regard, of more import than anything else in Scripture, they sure do seem to like to pick and choose what to take literally and what not to take literally.
Jesus’ command there is pretty clear and taken in context, even clearer.
The only attempt at refuting that passage that I have ever seen, is the inane argument that kids call their fathers daddy and they are disobeying Jesus, right? So if they can call their fathers, *Daddy*, then Catholics can call their religious leaders *Father*.
But Jesus words do not allow them that out, taken in context, which is how religious leaders are to be addressed.
Spicy rhetoric (e.g. “inane”) isn’t really an argument, it is a distracting word bomb.
And we do talk about church fathers without a sense of irony.
However to use ecclesiastical titles of “Father” seems to bid fair to run afoul of the intention of Christ.