Fairly simple, it boils down to a sort of play on words that doesn’t carry over to English very well. So line them up in chronological order…
Greek: …ἀλλ’ οὐ πολλοὺς πατέρας, ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς ἐγέννησα.
Latin: …sed non multos patres. Nam in Christo Jesu per Evangelium ego vos genui.
Douay-Rheims: …yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I **have begotten **you.
NABRE: …yet you do not have many fathers, for I **became **your **father **in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
The word **πατέρας/**patres literally means fathers, but the word **ἐγέννησα/**genui literally means I have begotten, not I became your father, but that’s what Paul meant, so the NABRE isn’t wrong. There is a play on the concept of fatherhood here, fathers beget. Personally I feel a better way of putting it would be “but not many fathers, because I fathered you in Christ Jesus through the Gospel.”
This is one of many examples of how the DR is better than many modern translations, because it’s more literal, but people who don’t know the languages keep wanting to say it’s a translation-of-a-translation as if that’s a bad thing.
[sign]SCORE:
DR 1, NABRE 0[/sign]:extrahappy::clapping::yyeess::egyptian: