Please keep your shame to yourself. Your other comments in this thread sound like you're trying to invoke your shame upon others for declaring bankruptcy.
If your intention was consistently "I would still feel shame" rather than "You should feel shame", that's fine, but please make that clearer.
"Choice" is a funny concept. There are cultures that made people choose between Seppuku and shame, with Seppuku being the honorable "choice". You seem to be accepting and even advocating a financial version of that "choice".
It's not quite as common these days, and for the best IMO.
A family member did that. I felt ashamed of him and less of him. I'm less likely to make him a loan. He lost credit with me. I think that's healthy.
Think of it as a captain staying with his ship. All else being equal the captain should stay on his ship. But if the ship is damaged beyond repair and it's sinking, a human life is far more valuable than a ship. Bankruptcy is leaving the ship when things are too far gone to save.
You can "keep your word", or not, to a person. When dealing with a large organization all that matters is what's in the contract. Shame doesn't factor into it because it can't be reciprocated. Corporations don't feel shame.
Events conspired to prevent you from keeping your word. There's no reason to pay for it emotionally for the rest of your life.
Also, do you think big corporations and CEOs feel shame when using tax loopholes and offshore tax havens to pay less tax than you do?
One can't just declare themselves bankrupt - you have to go through the legal system to do that, which supposedly verifies that you indeed qualify for the protections afforded by bankruptcy. Note that this is the same legal system that enforces the lender's rights in case you are able to repay but will not.
The bank is a business, not your friend. In the 2008 crisis, banks (and hotels and many other businesses) had mailed the keys back to lenders when their non-recourse loans were underwater.
As long as one does not fraudulently acquire the credit, and makes a good faith effort to repay it, there is no problem.
It is NOT shameful for the bank to take interest, which takes into account both the lost-time-value-of-money (inflation and opportunity cost) and the probability of default. They are a business, and the interest takes defaulting loans into account.
It is NOT shameful to use bankruptcy if you qualify. It wasn't added to the legal code to give people a "get out of jail free" card - It was added because, done right, it is more helpful to society at large (as well as individuals) to be able to reset debts that cannot be paid.
So these things are as shameful, which is to say, not shameful.
It was quite a contentious topic. St. Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas both condemned the practice, and the only positive (in favor of contemplation) I can find in a 3 minute search were the musings of Cardinal Hostiensis in the 13th century which were never elevated to the level of doctrine.
All in all, it is somewhat ironic that in the western world, a large part of the inner workings of the economy is predicated on practices condemned or otherwise historically shunned by the major 3 religions.
Yes, yes, I know, times change, women can work and vote, slavery ended, and all that, but there's still value in understanding those pesky historical details to keep one in the present from shooting oneself in the foot.
The main gist of Christian theological thinking though is that living on interest charged to others is immoral and sinful. Lending is a practice through which those that can absorb risk do so, with the hope of some reward come success of the venture. Lending only goes foul when the lender places their right to profit ahead of of their obligation to shoulder risk.
My two cents anyway.