Given that a miracle is, by definition, an action initiated supernaturally (i.e., outside nature), how can it be claimed a miracle violates nature?
Being super-natural, miracles are not subject to the strictures of natural law, and therefore cannot, by definition, violate laws that don't apply to them.
It may as well be said I violate the 60mph speed limit in Missouri when I am driving 65mph in Montana.
Further, by analogy, it may as well––that is, may as futilely––be said that my holding up a torch during a conversation violates the lexical and grammatical rules of the language in which I am conversing.
A torch is a non-verbal object, and holding up a torch is a non-verbal act; therefore, while it may produce linguistic effects in the conversation (e.g., expressions of anger, fear, joy, confusion, etc.), the torch itself, being non- and supra-linguistic, does not violate any linguistic law.
So it is with miracles. They are "signs" held up amidst the physical "conversation" of the course of nature, which, while producing physical, sensible effects in the subsequent course of nature, do not strictly violate the natural laws at work. Various signs are held up, by God, at key moments in the conversation of the world, of the Church's saga, of our own lives, in order to confirm, or alter, the course, tempo, and content, of that conversation.