She is the subject of the verb, but as it is in the middle/passive (there is only one way to denote the two voices in the perfect participle), she is being acted upon. When I say, "I was hit" it doesn't say a whole lot about me except what happened to me. It doesn't say that I have a quality of "hitness" which makes people hit me. That is the stretch which you are attempting to make when you say that the participle in the middle/passive shows us something about Mary. She is the object of grace (a far better translation of charitoo than favor, synonomous to the Hebrew word that is translated in KJV "favor" as in "Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord"). It's not that she has some "graceness" which causes her to be the object of grace. No, but she was the object of grace which left her with a condition of "graceness." I don't find this linguistic argument very compelling. We don't hold that Mary is full of grace because of soemthing she did. She is indeed a (more or less) passive participant in being "graceified."
SD
I don't find this linguistic argument very compelling.To be perfectly honest, I don't care if you do. I was merely correcting dignan3's post about the linguistics, the last sentence was just a "shot across the bow." No amount of wrangling will make Mary the one who deserved the favor she received. And if she didn't deserve it then, why does she deserve veneration now?