Here (at this John Martignoni link, and shown below) is a good brief biblical explanation explaining the Catholic interpretation of that directive from Jesus recorded in Matthew 23.
The Bible says to call no man Father, so why do we call our priests "Father"?
Matthew 23:9, "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in Heaven." Notice, however, that this makes no distinction between spiritual fathers, which is what our priests are to us, and biological fathers. In other words, if you interpret this passage to say, absolutely, that no man is to be called father, you cannot distinguish between calling a priest, father, and calling the man who is married to your mother, father.
But, is that actually what this passage is saying? Or is Jesus warning us against trying to usurp the fatherhood of God? Which, in many ways, is what the Pharisees and Scribes were doing. They wanted all attention focused on them...they were leaving God, the Father, out of the equation. Which is why Jesus goes on to call them hypocrites, liars, and whitewashed tombs.
If you interpret this passage from Matthew 23 as an absolute ban against calling anyone your spiritual father, then there are some problems for you in the rest of Scripture. For example, Jesus, in the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16, has the rich man referring to Abraham as "father" several times. Paul, in Romans chapter 4, refers to Abraham as the "father" of the uncircumcised, the Gentiles. That's referring to spiritual fatherhood, not biological fatherhood.
In Acts 7:1-2, the first Christian martyr, Stephen, referred to the Jewish authorities and elders who were about to stone him as brothers and "fathers," as does Paul in Acts, chapter 22. This is referring to spiritual fatherhood. So, if you interpret Matthew 23 as saying we cannot call anyone our spiritual father, then you have a problem with Jesus, Paul, Stephen, and the Holy Spirit...they must have all gotten it wrong.
It is okay to call priests "father", just as it was okay for Jesus and Paul to call Abraham "father" and for Stephen and Paul to call the Jewish elders "father." As long as we remember that our true Father is God the Father and that all aspects of fatherhood, biological and spiritual, are derived from Him. And as long as we do not allow anyone else to usurp that role in any way, shape, or form, as the Pharisees and Scribes were prone to do.
You are wrong, presenting a tangled-up, self-refuting mess of conditional contradictions.
If these others (other than God the Father) are "spiritual fathers" (need I quote where and how you used that term? why should I need to?) then they are offspring not of God, but of these other mens' perceptions, and also, limitations.
Look at history, and see how being 'sons of' men, in religious and even (so-called) spiritual sense, has not uniformly produced positive results.
When those negatives are too well blended with that which is otherwise pure, coming to us from on high, then the lesser elements will become mistaken for the Higher.
About the best one could do, is not to be others spiritual birth-father (lest they be sons and daughters of those persons, rather than God) but instead to help arrange things so that others can be adopted by God as sons and daughters, themselves.
So what is this discussion anyway, but one more in a long succession of struggles over word usages?
This ending, limiting, qualifying sort of statement from Martignoni;
As long as we do not allow...
Ok. Hey, he's got it. Almost...
But why continually tempt and test that necessary conditionally qualifying limitation by demanding that everyone call priests "father"?
Step away from the buffet table.
[and said in best china-american singsong voice]