Donald Norwood provides an accessible entryway into the complex history of Barth and his relation to Roman Catholicism with a specific emphasis upon the period surrounding Vatican II. Both terms found within the subtitle receive equal attention, for Norwood's underlying concern is the indirect influence that Barth had upon the council (even though Barth was prohibited from attending it because of health concerns), as well as the significance of the reform undertaken there not only for Roman Catholicism but also for Christians outside its communion. Norwood provides evidence as to the respect with which Barth was held by many Catholic theologians who would play an important role at the council, as well as by Pope Pius XII himself. He further recounts and provides reasons for why Barth was seen by some, such as Hans Urs von Balthasar, as a “catholic” and ecumenical theologian, insofar as his theological achievement offered gifts to the whole church, including those in fellowship with Rome. Norwood's study is not of a piece with the sharply focused theological investigations that others, such as Keith Johnson, Stephen Long, Amy Marga, and Benjamin Dahlke, have provided in their recent studies of Barth's interaction with Roman Catholicism and especially with such specific interlocutors as Erich Przywara and Balthasar. Nor does Norwood provide a sustained account of Barth's deeply evangelical sensibilities and Reformed convictions, which at times made relations with Catholicism difficult and resulted in a number of polemical stances that moderated in Barth's twilight years. These are not his primary concern. What he does provide is a helpful general overview of the larger forest, especially strengthened by his insightful descriptions of the events and ecumenical context that led up to and followed the historic council. There are some remaining difficulties. Norwood's account lacks a certain academic polish; at times it becomes repetitive in its discussion and anecdotes and occasionally wanders a bit from its immediate subject matter. For example, it might veer from recounting Barth's own thinking about the Catholicism of his time, or of that Catholicism itself, to Norwood's personal reflection upon the hopes and disappointments of the ecumenism of the post-Vatican period. The author's viewpoints are never far from the surface and emerge frequently, giving the text more the character of a report than of a purely historical investigation. In this sense, those who want close readings of Barth's texts and arguments pertaining to Catholic theology may want to look elsewhere. But for those who desire an insightful, charitable, and vivid description of Barth and Catholicism in the latter period of the theologian's life, during the years immediately preceding and following the council, this book will serve its purpose well. It is filled with the rich details that can be provided only by one who has spent years engaged within and dedicated to ecumenism. It is accessible to undergraduates and can serve as a helpful introductory text for graduate students; it can also be appreciated by general readers. The author's personal investment in the topic, evident in his style and presentation, can thus serve as an asset in making the relevance of these questions come alive. If there is a subtext that runs throughout the book, it is that had the Protestant Reformation and Catholic (Counter-)Reformation of the sixteenth century had the character of the dialogue between Barth and his Catholic interlocutors, and had Trent looked more like the Second Vatican Council, the Western church might not have divided in the way that it did. Norwood seems wistful with regard to not only what might have been in the sixteenth century but also what might have been in the twentieth century. For as much as he holds the Second Vatican Council in high esteem, declaring even his love for it, the seeds that were sown there did not come to full bloom. Reform is needed in all churches, Norwood argues, including that of Rome. Perhaps more controversial than this is his claim that Barth's thought may be a worthy resource for future ecumenical endeavors. Barth is a figure of promise for ecumenical rapprochement, and not, as once was thought, an impediment standing in its path.