In Catholic thought natural law is primarily described as being inscribed upon human nature, the "moral law within." Humans possess an innate capacity to discern good and evil and to act accordingly in the light of reason. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie: "The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin..."
The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties: "For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense...To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely."
Given effects of the Fall upon the created order, "natural law" cannot be read from nature directly. For example, Mother Nature is "red in tooth and claw." So we wouldn't want to extract moral imperatives from that Darwinian struggle. Which is the main reason any wholly naturalistic grounding of human morality is always going to tip more toward Nietzsche's will to power than the kenotic love of Jesus. (Which is, by the way, my main criticism of Jordan Peterson. Peterson's description of the hero archetype, which Christ exemplifies, is always one of agonistic struggle against nature rather than kenotic love for enemies.)
That said, one of the things that always strikes me in reading the Tao Te Ching are its extended meditations upon nature and morality. The Way (Dao or Tao) is described as an easy and natural path through life. To be moral is to be natural. Moral life is following the way of nature. Connections to the Old Testament description of Wisdom and the New Testament description of the Logos intersect with this. Though nature is morally ambiguous, especially in the agonistic struggle for survival, beneath that struggle one perceives the moral grain of the universe. From the Tao Te Ching:
"The highest goodness is like water.
Water benefits all things and does not compete.
It stays in lowly places that others disdain—
Thus it is close to the Way."///
Nothing in the world is softer and weaker than water,
yet nothing can better overcome the hard and strong.
Everyone knows this, but no one puts it into practice.
Therefore the sage says:
He who takes upon himself the humiliation of the people is fit to rule them.
He who takes upon himself the misfortunes of the world is fit to lead the world.
True words seem paradoxical.
///
All rivers flow to the sea because it is lower than they are.
Its low position gives it power.
Therefore, if a ruler wants to lead the people, he must speak to them as their servant.
If he wants to be above the people, he must place himself below them.
Thus, when he is above them, they do not feel burdened.
When he leads them, they are not harmed.
The whole world supports him and does not resent him.
Because he does not compete, no one can compete with him.
Again, special revelation is needed to guide our reflections of nature. As I pointed out, there are multitude of moral imperatives one might extract from nature. Many of them very dark. But because of the revelation of Jesus Christ we can now readily perceive, as described in the Tao Te Ching, the Christological aspects of nature. Because the Logos took on flesh we are now able to see where Christ shines through the natural world. The Way of Water is the Way of Christ. Humble, non-competitive, life-giving.
This is the Dao. This is the Way. This is Christ.
Matthew Milliner has been exploring some of this same space at Material Mysticism in Comment magazine.
This has opened up so much about my last few years of deconstruction/ reconstruction. The Tao was a big part of that. I could sense the spirit of Christ in it. (As a young man I found the same with “Zen Bones,Zen Flesh”, a small book of Zen parables)... But all that was very experience orientated and focused on being contemplative, and during this time Richard Rohr’s work was hugely influential for me. But I found a Pauline understanding of Christ’s work on the cross began to fade, and a fuzzy universalism began to take its place, which in turn produced a permissiveness in me. Sin lost its sting so to speak… I’ve come back to more traditional position of things ie Fleming Rutledge, NT Wright and for me, your post-progressive series was brilliant and timely, thank you… but there is a nebulous beauty in the Tao and that contemplative side that I find reflects much of my natural self, but being multifaceted as many of us are, so does the analytic rationalistic reflections of the “better”(sic) Evangelicals… But I’m concerned that the Rohr school and such may lead many to negate the biblical sense of atonement and thus the significance of the work of the Cross. Without going deeper, I hope you might understand what I mean… Now I do like Richard and much of his work has touched me, also he has been true to his tradition with Duns Scotus et al, and clearly acknowledges the alternative position Franciscan theology holds in the Catholic Church. But I must say there is a bit of a clash with his theology and my understanding of the Judeo /Christian tradition… Your views on this would be appreciated because I find you’ve clarified a number of things for me and appreciated your comment on Jordan Petersen in this post. 💕🙏