Yes, otherwise they would not disregard Jesus' command to "call NO man your father."
Two points: That verse refers to calling someone "abba" or more precisely, your heavenly Father. In his letters, Paul refers to himself as the father of church x or y...so *clearly* this wasn't meant to be a literal "call no man your father" verse. Additionally, what else are you supposed to call the guy whose sperm you were created from? "Sperm provider of lifey goodness?"
Secondly: There is not a single Christian on this planet who interprets the Bible literally 100% of the time. One of my ex-girlfriends was a fundamentalist and told me she literally believed in the Bible. My response, "so why don't you go to confess your sins? Why don't you believe that Peter was the head of the church? Why don't you believe that Christ is actually present in communion?" Her response: "Jerk." You see, no one really believes in a 100% literal interpretation of Scripture. If we did, we'd believe that Christ was actually a lamb and start worshipping livestock.
And as far as I know, no one does.
The subject is whether the Catholic Cardinal is correct in his interpretation of Genesis, and whether it is accepted as Catholic doctrine.
Your point about Father. Despite whether calling one's sperm donor father is correct or not, it still does not justify the Catholic Church's adopting a title that Christ explicitly said don't.