Conservation of Energy and the soul

It seems I've been wrong for a while and my professors were misleading me. The Law of Conservation of Energy is apparently not universal! It seems that Catholics have figured this out but science education has left it out. Here are the relevant passages from the Catholic point of view (emphasis added):

At the same time we must not forget the hypothetical character of the conditions postulated, and the limitations in its application to particular concrete problems. Bearing this in mind, even if there occurs some novel experience, as, e.g., the fact that radium seemed capable of sustaining itself at a higher temperature than surrounding objects and of emitting a constant supply of heat without any observable dimination of its own store of energy, science does not therefore immediately abandon its fundamental principle. Instead, it rightly seeks for some hypothesis by which this apparently rebellious fact can be reconciled with so widely ranging a general law—as, for example, the hypothesis that this eccentric substance possesses a peculiar power of constantly collecting energy from the neighbouring ether and then dispensing it in the form of heat; or, that the high complexity of the molecular constitution of radium enables it, while slowly breaking down into simpler substances, to continue expending itself in heat for an extraordinarily long time. Such an exception, however, is a useful reminder of the unwarranted rashness of those who, ignoring the true character and limitations of the law, would, in virtue of its alleged universal supremacy, rule out of existence, whether in living beings or in the universe as a whole, every agent or agency which may condition, control, or modify in any way the working of the law in the concrete.

This is then used in the end to answer how the soul can be external, move objects (hands, feet etc) and do no work:

III. This brings us to the central crux of the subject. If the soul, or mind, or any of its activities, causesor modifies the movement of any particle of matter, then it seems to have produced an effect equivalent to that of a material agent, to have performed "work", and thereby to have augmented or diminished the previously existing quantity of energy in the area within which the disturbance took place. The vital question then arises: Can this real influence of the soul, or of its activities, on matter be squared with the law of conservation? At all events, if it cannot, then so much the worse for the law. The law is a generalization from experience. If its present formulation conflicts with any established fact, we may not deny the fact; we must instead reformulate the law in more qualified terms. If our experience of radium seems to contradict the law of conservation, we are not at liberty to deny the existence of radium, or the fact that it emits heat. We must either give up the universality of the law, or devise some hypothesis by which the law and the new fact may be reconciled. Now we are certain that volition and thought do modify the working of some material agents. Consequently, we must devise some hypothesis by which this fact may be reconciled with the law, or else alter the expression of the law.

So because "we" don't understand radium, humans must be different and so the law is not a law!

The whole argument (read it all if you don't believe me) hinges on the fact that there are exceptions to the law so a soul and other metaphysical things can exist since they law is incomplete. Moreover it says that second law of thermodynamics: "presents us with the materials for a very powerful argument against that theory".

Since we now know (the article is cited as being from 1909!!!) that radium does change, it is just nuclear, not electrical and energy is strictly conserved in this and all other cases and we know that the second law does not in any way contract the second law of thermodynamics can we now in 2011 deny the existence of a soul or other "objects" that do work but don't add energy to the system? Seems like a good bet.